LIBEARY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 


HQ  1028  .J35  1844 
Janeway,  J.  J.  1774-1858. 
Unlawful  marriage 

Book, a r.:..;,.,         


«       — • 


•     *  . 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/umlwfulmarriageOOjane 


UNLAWFUL  MARRIAGE: 


AN    ANSWER 


THE  PUKITAN"  AND  "OMICRON," 


WHO    HALE    ADVOCATED,    IN    A    PAMPHLET. 


THE  LAWFULNESS  OF  THE  MARRIAGE  OF  A  MAN  WITH 
HIS  DECEASED  WIFE'S  SISTER, 


J.    J.    JANE  WAY,    D.  D 


NEW-YORK : 

ROBERT    CARTER,    58  CANAL    ^T 

1844. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844, 

By  ROBERT  CARTER, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of 

New- York. 


ne  w- york: 

JOHN     F.     TROW     &    CO.,     PRINTERS, 

No.  33  Ann-street. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


In  writing  this  reply  the  author  has  sincerely  sought 
the  truth.  He  wishes  the  truth  to  be  established, 
whatever  may  be  the  result  of  his  labor. 

That  the  reader  may  test  his  fairness,  he  has  care- 
fully noted  the  pages  where  may  be  found  the  pass- 
ages on  which  he  animadverts,  and  generally  the  par- 
agraphs too.  This  will  greatly  facilitate  the  trouble 
of  finding  the  passages. 

With  the  same  view,  he  has  endeavored  to  mark 
accurately  the  book  and  chapter,  and  sometimes  the 
page  of  the  authorities  to  which  he  refers,  or  from 
which  he  quotes. 

The  author  has  no  fondness  for  controversy  ;    but 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

having,  for  his  own  satisfaction,  examined  the  question, 
he  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  do  what  might  be  in  his 
power  to  defend  the  truth,  and  set  forth  the  claims  of 
what  he  believes  to  be  a  command  of  God. 
New  Brunswick,  Nov.  29,  1843. 


ERRATA. 

Page  64,  line  6,  read  no  law,  for  the  law, 
"      78,    "    (3,    "    nieces,    "  wives. 
"    114,    "  17,    "    sou         "  sue. 
"    117,    "    2,    "    110         "  118. 


CONTENTS. 


Pag« 
Introduction , g 

CHAPTER  I. 

Remarks  on  the  Puritan's  historical  facts.  —  His  inaccura- 
cies.— Selden. — Philo  Judasus. — Misrepresentations  of  Jeremy 
Taylor.— Taylor's  error.— Burnet.— Universities  of  Europe. — 
The  Protestant  Chuiches.— The  national  Synod  of  France. ...     18 

CHAPTER  II. 

Subject  continued.— Giotius.— Calvin.— Selden.— Chief  Justice 
Vaughan.— Jeremy  Taylor.— Chancellor  Kent— Dr.  J.  P.  Wil- 
son.—Judge  Story.— Change  of  sentiment.— Its  Origin 35 

CHAPTER  III. 

Consequences  of  the  Puritan's  principles.— Church  destitute  of 
a  law  of  Incest.— Improbable 54 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Perpetuity  of  the  Levitical  law.— Proofs.— Puritan's  argument.— 
H.s  ?uide.~ Criterion  not  rightly  applied.— Turrettin.— Quo- 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Page 
tation  from  Chancellor  Kent. — Quotations  from  Puffendorf. — 
From  Selden  and  Grotius 64 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  game  subject  continued.— First  criterion. — Third  criterion. 
— Second  criterion 79 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Levitical  statutes  belong  not  to  the  civil  or  judicial  law.— 
Au  ecclesiastical  law.— Unity  of  the  Church.— The  law  not 
repealed.—  Jewish  code 90 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Levitical  statutes  relate  to  marriage.—  Opinion  of  Tal- 
mudists  and  Karaites.— Judgment  of  the  Primitive  Church. — 
Of  the  Reformed  Church. — Argument  of  the  Puritan. — His 
error  shown 103 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Levitical  law  a  natural  law. — Classification  of  the  stat- 
utes.— Marshall's  objection. — His  singular  mistake. — Proofs  of 
its  being  a  natuial  law. — How  made  known. — Opinion  of  ju- 
rists.— Summary  of  its  prohibitions. — Chancellor  Kent's  defi- 
nition.— The  Puritan's  objections  answered 135 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Summary  view  of  the  Argument 155 

CHAPTER  X. 

Marriage  unlawful. — Rules  of  interpretation. — Proved  to  be  cor- 
rect.— Objections  of  Omicron  and  the  Puritan  answered. — 
Eight  relations  by  affinity 161 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Page 
Subject  continued. — Rules   of  interpretation. — Proofs  that  the 
marriage  is  unlawful. — Opinion  of  Basil  the  Great. — Meaning 
of  near  of  kin. — Omicron's  interpretation. — His  error. — His 
imaginary  relation. — But  two  kinds  of  relations 181 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Conclusion — Leviticus  18:  18. — Meaning. — Objections. — Impli- 
cation often  rejected, — Penalties  of  the  Hebrew  civil  law....  201 


INTRODUCTION 


The  design  of  the  Puritan's  pamphlet  is  to 
vindicate  the  lawfulness  of  a  marriage  between 
a  man  and  his  deceased  wife's  sister.  It  was 
prepared  and  published  in  opposition  to  an  Act 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  by  which,  in  accordance  with  their 
Confession  of  Faith,  and,  as  they  believed,  in 
accordance  with  the  sacred  Scriptures,  they 
affirmed  the  decision  of  one  of  their  Presbyte- 
ries, who  had  deposed  a  member  for  the  sin  of 
contracting  such  a  marriage. 

It  was  distributed  widely  among  the  members 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  :  and,  as  the  ques- 
tion of  the  lawfulness  of  such  a  marriaae  had 
by  appeal,  come  up  before  the  General  Synod 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  had,  by 
that  Synod,  been  sent  down  to  all  their  Classes, 

2 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

to  report  their  judgment  on  the  question  to  the 
next  Syncd,  the  pamphlet  was  widely  and  gratui- 
tously distributed  among  the  members  of  the 
Classes,  with  a  view  to  influence  their  decision, 
and  to  effect  a  change  in  the  action  of  that 
Christian  Church  in  regard  to  such  marriages. 

It  had  doubtless  very  considerable  influence 
on  the  members  of  that  Church,  and  particularly 
on  her  younger  ministers.  The  General  Syncd 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  at  their  last 
session,  having  received  the  reports  of  their  Class- 
es, departed  from  what  had  heretcfore  been  the 
uniform  practice  of  their  Church,  and  the  Church 
of  Holland,  from  which  they  were  descended, 
by  resolving,  "  that  all  resolutions  which  may 
have  been  passed  by  the  General  Synod,  forbid- 
ding  a  man  to  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sister, 
be  and  hereby  are  rescinded."* 

In  the  year  1816,  the  venerable  Dr.  John  H. 
Livingston,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Semi- 
nary of  that  Church,  prepared  and  published  a 
dissertation  on  this  question,  at  the  request  of 
the  General  Syncd.     It  is  able  and  learned. 

*  See  their  Minutes  for  1843,  p.  221. 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

As  early  as  1530,  Holland,  the  Doctor  shows, 
declared  in  an  ordinance,  "  that  no  persons 
related  in  blood,  or  by  affinity,  within  the  for- 
bidden decrees,  shall  be  permitted  to  cohabit  or 
be  married,  under  penalty  of  being  declared  in- 
famous, and  subjected  to  corporeal  punishment 
and  heavy  fines,  and  if  they  persisted  in  their 
crime,  to  banishment."  In  another  ordinance, 
the  forbidden  degrees  are  enumerated  ;  and  it  is 
declared,  "  that  no  man  may  marry  the  widow 
of  his  deceased  brother,  nor  may  any  woman 

MARRY  THE  HUSBAND  OF  HER  DECEASED  SISTER." 

Pp.  49,  50. 

And  to  prove  what  construction  is  put  on 
Levit.  18:  16,  by  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
the  Doctor  quotes  from  the  marginal  notes  of  the 
translators,  appointed  by  the  National  Synod  of 
Dortrecht,  held  in  16JS  and  1019,  the  follow- 
ing words:  "From  this  law  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows, that  a  woman  who  has  been  married  with 
one  brother,  may  not,  after  his  death,  marry 
with  another  brother  ;  and,  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, a  man  who  has  been  married  to  one  sister, 
may  not,  after  her  death,  marry  the  other  sister." 
He  quotes  also  their  note  on  verse  18,  which  is 


12  INTRODUCTION, 

as  follows  :  "  It  consequently  can  by  no  means 
from  this  be  concluded,  that  the  husband,  after 
the  death  of  his  wife,  may  marry  her  sister." 
Pp.  162, 163.  The  following  pages,  from  p.  16S 
to  172,  contain  strong  additional  confirmation, 
which  are  commended  to  the  reader's  notice. 

In  the  conclusion  of  bis  dissertation,  this 
venerable  and  profoundly  learned  Professor,  long 
the  brightest  ornament  of  his  Church,  says  : 
"  The  Reformed  Church  in  Holland  has  es- 
tablished by  her  canons,  '  that  no  man  may 
marry  his  sister-in-law,  and  no  woman  may 
marry  her  brother-in-law ,'  and  has  never  devia- 
ted from  that  rule.  The  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  America,  which  is  the  same  with 
the  Church  in  Holland,  has  adopted  the  same 
canons,  corresponds  with  that  Church,  and  is 
esteemed  and  beloved  by  it,  as  a  valuable  por- 
tion of  the  same  Church,  and  is  bound  by  the 
most  sacred  obligations  to  transmit  unimpaired 
to  posterity  the  precious  treasure  with  which 
she  is  intrusted.  There  can  therefore  be  no 
cause  for  suspense,  no  motive  for  hesitation  : 
but,  on  the  contrary,  every  consideration  sug- 
gested by  faithfulness  to  God  and   attachment 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

to  His  Church,  renders  it  an  imperious  duty  to 
avoid  even  the  appearance  of  schism,  and  strict- 
ly tO  ABIDE  BY  THE  ESTABLISHED  CANONS." 

"  It  has  pleased  the  Lord  to  preserve  this 
Church  during  two  centuries  in  America,  and 
render  her  conspicuous  and  respectable  for  her 
faithful  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
and  the  purity  of  her  morals.  It  is,  therefore, 
fervently  hop  id,  that  this  distinguished  Church 
will  never  relax  in  her  holy  discipline,  nor  tarnish 
her  high  and  worthy  character  by  abandonina 
her  standards,  or  rescinding  her  own  canons ; — 
above  all,  that  she  will  not  be  the  first,  the  only 
one  in  this  country,  or  even  in  the  world,  who 
shall  dare  to  contravene  the  law  of  God,  and 
dispense  with  a  crime  which  he  forbids."  Pp. 
176-178. 

In  the  year  1788,  the  Particular  Synod  of 
that  Church  resolved,  "that  as  all  such  mar- 
riages are  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  that 
purity  of  life  so  becoming  the  Christian  charac- 
ter, the  persons  contracting  such  marriages  can- 
not be  admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  until 
the  offence  be  removed."  In  1797,  the  ques- 
tion "  was  brought  up  from  the  Particular  Synod, 

2* 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

"  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  marry  his  deceased 
wife's  sister?''  to  the  General  Synod,  who  an- 
swered the  question  in  the  negative,  and  deter- 
mined at  the  same  time,  that  the  censure  proper 
to  be  inflicted  on  persons  contracting  such  un- 
lawful marriage,  had  been  justly  decided  on  by 
the  Particular  Synod  of  1788,  whose  resolution 
has  just  been  recited.* 

In  1815,  nineteen  years  afterwards,  the  ques- 
tion came  before  the  General  Synod  again  for 
adjudication,  when  they  postponed  the  decision 
till  the  next  year.  At  this  session  the  venerable 
Professor  was  requested  to  write  on  the  subject. 
See  preface  to  his  dissertation. 

The  next  year  the  vote  was  taken  on  this  re- 
solution: "Resolved,  That  so  much  of  the  acts 
of  the  General  Synod,  passed  in  the  years  1797 
and  1815,  recorded  on  page  264,  in  the  appen- 
dix to  our  constitution,  as  directs  the  churches 
to  exclude  from  sealing  ordinances  the  persons 
contemplated  by  those  acts,  be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby  repealed."  The  vote  stood  thus :  yeas 
fifteen,   nays  forty-one;   nearly   three   to   one. 

*  See  Reformed  D.  C.  Constitution,  p,  264,  publish- 
ed in  1815 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

The  names  are  recorded.  "  Whereupon  it  was 
Resolved,  nemine  contradicente,  That  it  is  inex- 
pedient to  make  any  alteration  or  modification 
of  the  decisions  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of 
a  man's  marrying  his  deceased  wife's  sister." 

Fifteen  years  after  this,  in  1S42,  this  vexed 
question  came  up  again,  by  appeal  from  a  Classes 
which  had  subjected  an  offender  to  merited  dis- 
cipline. The  Synod  sent  it  down  to  the  Classes 
to  be  considered  and  reported  on.  The  result 
is  before  the  public.  By  a  vote  of  forty-eight  to 
twenty-two  the  resolution  already  recited  (p.  10) 
was  adopted. 

The  sad  event,  deprecated  by  the  venerable 
man  who  contended  for  the  purity  of  that  Church 
which  he  so  much  loved,  and  whose  interests  he 
had  so  greatly  promoted,  has  arrived.  Were  he 
now  living,  he  would  pour  out  his  devout  soul  in 
deep  humiliation  before  God,  and  exclaim, 
Ichabod ! 

The  feelings  of  the  New  England  Puritan 
are  doubtless  of  an  opposite  nature.  The  pam- 
phlet bearing  this  name,  to  which  we  now  re- 
turn, is,  as  a  whole,  a  singular  production.  It 
is  composed  of  two  distinct  essays,  written  by 
different  persons,  and  an  extract  from  an  essay 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

by  a  third  individual.  The  Puritan  regards 
the  law  in  Levit.  viii.  as  a  Jewish  law,  havincr 
no  reference  to  marriage,  and  imposing  no  ob- 
ligation on  other  nations.  Omicron  admits  the 
law  to  be  a  law  relating  to  marriage,  and  pre- 
scribing the  degrees  within  which  marriage  is 
not  to  be  contracted ;  but  he  endeavors  to 
prove  the  particular  marriage  in  question  not 
prohibited  by  this  law.  Dr.  Benedict  takes  the 
same  ground,  but  boldly  affirms  this  marriage  to 
be  lawful,  because  it  is  not  specified  among  the 
prohibitions.  In  the  same  way  he  might  prove 
the  lawfulness  of  marriage  between  own  brothers 
and  sisters  ;  for  they  are  not  found  among  the 
specifications. 

The  Puritan  willingly  calls  on  writers  who 
occupy  ground  so  entirely  different  from  the 
ground  on  which  he  stands,  to  assist  him  in 
opening  a  wide  door  for  the  marriage  of  a  man 
with  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  to  pass  from  a 
state  of  dishonor  to  a  state  of  honor,  The  suc- 
cess of  this  combined  effort  will  be  tested.  We 
shall  see  whether  those  writers  can  wipe  away 
the  disgrace,  which  past  ages  have  stamped  upon 
such  connexions. 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

We  find  too  in  this  pamphlet,  an  extract  from 
a  letter  of  the  late  Judge  Brockholst  Livingston, 
dated  Dec.  12,  1817.  It  contains  not  a  single 
argument.     All  is  naked  assertion. 

A  man  of  that  name  once  lived  in  New  York. 
Destitute  of  moral  courage  sufficient  to  refuse 
a  challenge  to  fight  a  duel,  he  accepted  it,  and 
killed  his  antagonist.  Is  this  the  man  from 
whose  simple  assertion  the  Puritan  is  willing 
to  call  for  aid  ?     How  unfortunate  ! 


IS  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Remarks  on  (he  Puritan's  historical  facts. — His  inaccuracies.— 
Selden  — Phi'o  Judaeus. — Misrepresentations  of  Jeremy  Taylor. — 
Taylor's  error.— Burnet. — Universities  of  Europe. — The  Protest- 
ant Chuiches. — The  national  Synod  of  France. 

The  heading  of  the  Puritan's  sixth  chapter  is 
thus  expressed  :  "  Historical  vieiv  of  the  sub- 
ject." 

What  was  his  subject  ?  He  aimed  at  proving 
two  points : — I.  That  the  Levitical  law  is  not 
binding  on  us  Christians,  (chap,  i.)  II.  That 
it  did  not  relate  to  marriage  at  all,  but  only 
to  "  single  acts  of  an  incestuous  character," 
(chap,  iii.) 

1.  We  protest  against  his  assertion  in  the 
second  paragraph  of  this  sixth  chapter :  "  He 
(Christ)  even  allows  that  for  the  most  part  their 
expositions  of  the  law  were  true  and  to  be  ob- 
served ;"   which  he  attempts  to  sustain  by  quot- 


HISTORICAL  FACTS.  19 

ing  this  passage :  "  The  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
sit  in  Moses'  seat;  all  therefore  whatsoever  they 
bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and  do."  (Matt. 
23:2,3.) 

Before  the  Saviour  had  uttered  this,  He  had 
upbraided  these  Jewish  teachers  with  making 
"  the  commandment  of  God  of  none  effect  by 
their  tradition;"  and  with  "  teaching  for  doc- 
trine the  commandments  of  men  ;"  and  He  had 
stigmatized  them  as"  blind  leaders  of  the  blind." 
(Matt.  15  :  3,  6,  9,  14.)  At  another  time  (Matt. 
16  :  6,  12)  He  had  given  his  disciples  this  gen- 
eral caution  :  "  Take  heed  and  beware  of  the 
leaven  (doctrine)  of  the  Pharisees;"  and,  in  the 
very  chapter  quoted  from  by  the  Puritan,  our 
blessed  Lord  thunders  out  against  these  false 
teachers  the  most  terrible  denunciations;  de- 
nominating them  "fools  and  blind  guides,"  and 
tlosing  the  whole  in  this  awful  language  :  "  Ye 
serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye 
escape  the  damnation  of  hell?"  (v.  33.)  Was 
it  correct  in  the  Puritan  to  assert  of  teachers 
thus  characterized  by  Christ,  and  in  regard  to 
whom  He  cautioned  his  disciples,  that  He  "  al- 
lowed their  expositions  of  the  law"  to  be,  for  the 


2 1  HISTORICAL    FACTS, 

most  part,  "  true,  and  to  be  observed."  Surely 
not;  He  only  meant,  his  disciples  were  to  re- 
ceive as  true,  and  observe  what  they  taught  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Moses.  They  were  to  act 
as  the  noble  Bereans  did,  when  Paul  preached 
to  them  ;  they  "  received  the  word  with  all  readi- 
ness of  mind,  and  searched  the  Scriptures  daily, 
whether  those  things  were  so."  (Acts  17  :  11.) 
No  intelligent  commentator,  such  as  Doddridge, 
Scott,  or  Clarke,  will  sustain  the  Puritan's  in- 
terpretation. 

2.  We  think  he  has  failed  to  derive  support 
from  these  blind  leaders ;  for  the  Talmudists, 
whom  he  calls  "  the  successors  of  the  Pharisees," 
(p.  21,)  certainly  did  regard  the  Levitical  sta- 
tutes as  referring  to  marriage,  and  prescribing 
its  limits.  The  Karaites  too  and  the  Hebrews 
put  on  the  law  the  same  construction.* 

3.  Nor  has  the  Puritan  proved  what  he 
thinks  "  undisputed  :"  "  the  Talmudists  tell  us 
that  the  ancient  Jews  practised  the  marriages  in 
question,  and  did  not  regard  them  as  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  Moses."     (Chap.  VI.  2d  par.) 

*  Uxor  Hebraica,  chap,  i — iv. 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  21 

What  is  his  proof  of  this  confident  assertion  ? 
A  quotation  from  Selden,  which  he  translates 
thus :  "  The  Karaites  regard  the  marriage  of  a 
wife's  sister,  both  while  the  first  is  living  and 
after  her  death,  as  forbidden.  But  the  Talmud- 
ists  teach  otherwise."  The  original,  "  Quod 
non  admittunt  Talmudici,"  is  weaker  than  the 
above  translation.     But  let  it  pass. 

On  this  quotation  we  remark  :  1.  Selden 
does  not  speak  of  any  testimony  borne  to  a  fact 
or  ancient  custom  of  the  Jews,  either  by  the  Tal- 
mudists  or  by  the  Karaites  ;  but  only  tells  us 
how  each  sect  interpreted  the.  law.  2.  Selden 
does  not  say,  the  Talmudists  have  informed  us 
how  the  Pharisees  interpreted  the  law;  nor  has 
he  marked  the  period  when  the  Talmudists  be- 
gan to  teach  this  doctrine.  He  only  informs  us 
they  taught  it,  when  the  Karaites  taught  the 
opposite.  Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  the  Kara- 
ites were  not  formed  into  a  regular  sect  till  the 
year  759.*  Yet  this  single  quotation  from  Sel- 
den, the  Puritan  magnifies  in  his  next  paragraph 
(p.  22)  into  "  the  united  testimony  of  a  nation 
embodied  in  the  Talmuds." 

*  Buck's  Tlieol.  Diet.     Adam's  Hist,  of  all  Religions. 


22  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

The  Puritan  claims  to  be  a  descendant  and 
successor  of  the  Puritans  who  settled  in  Massa- 
chusetts a  little  more  than  200  years  ago.  Sup- 
pose his  pamphlet  should  hereafter  fall  into  the 
hands  of  an  individual  yet  to  be  born,  and  he, 
from  the  Puritan's  name,  should  infer  that  he 
had  justly  represented  their  faith  and  practice; 
would  the  inference  be  true  in  point  of  fact? 
To  use  the  writer's  own  words,  "  We  trow  not." 
The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  was,  in 
1648,  with  the  exception  of  what  relates  to 
Church  government  and  discipline,  adopted  by 
those  Puritans,  with  the  highest  commendation. 
No  alteration  was  then  made  in  the  section  re- 
lating to  Incest* 

Had  our  brother  extended  his  acquaintance 
with  Selden,  he  might  have  found  a  passage  more 
suited  to  his  purpose.  Speaking  of  the  six  blood 
relations  of  the  wife,  whom,  in  the  (pinion  of 
the  Hebrews,  it  was  unlawful  for  her  husband  to 
marry,  whether  legitimateor  illegitimate,  Selden 
goes  on  to  add  the  seventh  :  "  Nee  demum 
septimam,  uxoris  nempe  sororem  sive  uterinam 

*  Preface  to  Camb.  Platform,  pp.  4,  5. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  23 

sive  germanam,  dura  ilia  superstes;  tarn  etsi 
fuerit  repudiata.  Nam  de  uxor  is  sorore  jam 
demortuae  minquam  dubitarunt  ;  cam  verba 
legis  de  uxore  sint,  dum  ipsa  adhuc  vivit."* 
But  even  this,  on  exanination,  will  be  found  to 
be  insufficient  to  support  the  Puritan's  confident 
assertion  noticed  above. 

The  authority  for  the  statement  made  in  the 
quotation  adduced  by  our  brother,  is  the  passage 
we  have  just  cited.  Now,  if  Selden  had  referred 
to  Philo  Judaus,  or  to  the  Mishna  or  Gemarra, 
as  his  authority  for  saying  the  Hebrews  did  not 
doubt  the  lawfulness  of  marrying  a  deceased 
wife's  sister,  it  would  have  been  better  support- 
ed. His  authority  is  either  Salomon  Jarchi  ad 
Levit.  18  :  18,  and  Maimonidcs,  celebrated  Jewish 
writers  who  lived  in  the  twelfth  century,  many 
ages  after  the  time  of  the  Pharisees  ;  or  no  parti- 
cular authority. t 

Philo  Judmus,  who  was  born  about  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  era,  does  not  assert 
the   lawfulness   of    the   marriage    in    question, 

*  De  Jure  Nat  lib.  v.  chap.  10.  p.  545. 

t  Selden  De  Jure  Nat.  et  Gen.  lib.  v.  chap.  10. 


24  HISTORICAL  FACTS. 

which  he  would  have  done,  if  that  had  been  his 
opinion ;  or  he  would  have  stated  the  marriage 
to  be  customary  among  the  Hebrews,  if   that 
had  been  the  fact.     He  does  neither.     We  have 
before  us  a  transcript  of  his  original  Greek,  with 
the  accompanying  Latin  translation,  and  an  En- 
glish version,  all  kindly  furnished  by  a  learned 
friend  who  had  access  to  Philo's    works.     As 
our  friend  favors  the  marriage  under  debate,  his 
English  translation  will  be  received  as  correct 
by  our  opponents.    We  give  his  words  :  "  Again 
(Moses)  does  not  permit  a  man  to  marry  two 
sisters,  either   at  the  same  time  or  at  different 
times,  even  though  he  may  have  put  away  the 
one  whom  he  took  first  in  marriage.     For,  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  her  that  remains  with  her 
husband,  or  of  her  that  has  been  sent  away, 
whether  she  remain  a  widow,  or  be  married  to 
another  man,  (Moses)  accounted  it  unholy  for 
the  sister  to  take  the  place  of  her  that  has  been 
unfortunate  ;  teaching  them  not  to  violate  the 
right  of  consanguinity,  nor  to  rise  by  the  fall 
of  one  so  united  by  descent,  nor  to  delight  and 
exult  in  being  served  by  her  sister's  enemies,  and 
in  serving  them  in  turn.    For  from  these  things 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  25 

arise  violent  jealousies  and  fierce  contentions, 
producing  an  unspeakable  multitude  of  evils."* 

Philo,  in  this  passage,  certainly  does  not  as 
sert  it  to  be  lawful  for  a  man  to  marry  his  de- 
ceased wife's  sister.  He  asserts  it  to  be  a  viola- 
tion of  the  divine  law,  for  a  man  to  marry  two 
sisters,  either  at  one  time,  or  at  different  times, 
while  the  first  wife  lives;  and  to  be  unlawful  for 
her  sister  to  form  a  connexion  with  her  husband. 
He  is  silent  in  regard  to  what  mi^ht  be  lawful 
after  the  death  of  the  first  wife.  Now,  if  the 
Jews  had  never  entertained  a  doubt,  as  Selden 
says,  of  the  lawfulness  of  such  a  marriage  on  the 
death  of  the  first  wife,  is  it  not  highly  probable 
that  Philo  would  have  stated  the  fact  ? 

This  appears  the  more  probable,  when  we 
compare  Philo' s  statement  with  the  comment  on 
Levit.  18  :  18,  by  that  famous  Jewish  Rabbi, 
Jonathan  the  son  of  Uzziel,  who  was  contem- 
porary with  Philo.  It  is  in  these  words  :  "  Mu- 
Jierem  etiam  vivente  sorore  non  accipies,  ad 
affligendum  earn,  ad  revelandum  turpitudinem 
ejus  super  ipsam,  omnibus  diebus  ejus." 

*  De  Spccialibus  Legibus,  p.  602,  printed  at  Geneva, 

1613. 

3* 


26  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

Both  writers  acrree  in  teaching,  that  the  divine 
law  prohibited  a  man  to  marry  his  wife's  sister 
while  she  was  living ;  and  both  are  silent  in  re- 
gard  to  what  might  be  done  after  her  decease. 
The  comment  of  Jonathan  differs,  in  the  words 
he  uses,  but  little  from  the  text  itself. 

Now,  if  the  Jews  had  never  doubted  that  it 
was  lawful  for  a  man  to  marry  his  sister-in-law 
after  the  death  of  his  wife,  is  it  not  highly  pro- 
bable the  fact  would  have  been  stated  by  one  or 
both  of  these  writers,  when  giving  the  meaning 
of  the  prohibition  in  Lcvit.  18 :  18  ?  Is  not 
their  silence  proof  to  the  contrary  ? 

But  if  we  were  to  admit  it  could  be  proved, 
that  such  an  interpretation  was  put  on  the  Le- 
vitical  law  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  what  will  the  Puritan  gain? 
Are  we  to  bow  to  their  judgment?  Christians 
are  as  competent  to  interpret  a  written  law  as 
they  were ;  for,  although  they  were  nearer  to  the 
time  of  the  giving  of  the  law  than  Christians  of 
the  present  day,  yet  they  were  not  nearer  than 
Primitive  Christians.  Besides,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that,  between  the  time  of  these  Jewish 
expounders  of  the  law  and  its  first  publication, 


HISTORICAL   PACTS.  27 

there  had  intervened  fifteen  hundred  years, 
ample  time  for  great  changes  in  opinion  and 
mournful  departures  from  the  spirit  and  true 
meaning  of  the  law. 

Great  corruption  in  faith  and  practice  had,  in 
fact,  taken  place  among  the  Jews,  when  out 
blessed  Lord,  the  great  Teacher,  came  into  the 
world.  They  were  ignorant  of  the  true  mean- 
ing of  their  prophetic  writings,  and  earthly  in 
their  expectations  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived 
from  the  coming  of  the  long  promised  Messiah, 
or  they  would  not  have  rejected  and  crucified 
Him,  when  He  came  to  bless  them  with  His 
salvation.  They  were,  as  our  Saviour  says,  a 
"  wicked  generation."  (Matt.  12  :  45.)  The 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  too  had,  we  have  seen., 
corrupted  the  law  by  their  traditions,  and  were 
denounced  by  the  Redeemer  as  "  blind  guides," 
and  as  a.  "  generation  of  vipers."  And  are  we 
to  defer  to  the  judgment  of  such  expositors  of 
the  law ;  we  who  live  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  enjoy  all  its  increased  light  and 
privileges?  The  Jewish  teachers  had,  by  their 
tradition,  made  of  none  effect  that  command- 
ment of  God  which  requires  us  to   honor  our 


23  HISTORICAL  FACTS. 

parents ;  and  would  it  be  safe  to  rely  on  their 
interpretation  of  a  law  that  laid  a  restraint  on 
their  animal  passions? 

4.  Here  it  may  be  proper  to  correct  a  quota- 
tion of  the  Puritan,  on  page  10,  from  Jeremy 
Taylor's  Ductor  Dubitantium.  There  he  has 
fallen  into  a  strange  mistake.  He  cites  indeed 
the  words  of  Taylor  ;  but,  by  an  unfortunate 
application  of  them  to  a  wrong  period  of  time, 
he  represents  him  as  testifying  in  opposition  to 
his  own  written  testimony.  Jeremy  Taylor  does 
not  say,  that,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
"  there  was  almost  a  general  consent  upon  this 
proposition,  that  the  Levitical  degrees  do  not,  by 
any  law  of  God,  bind  Christians  to  their  observ- 
ance." He  says  the  contrary,  as  will  appear 
from  his  own  words.  On  page  222  he  thus 
speaks  :  "  For  all  those  degrees  in  which 
Moses's  law  hath  forbidden  marriages,  are  sup- 
posed, by  very  many  now-a-days,  that  they  are 
still  to  be  observed  with  the  same  distance  and 
sacredness;  affirming,  because  it  was  a  law  of 
God,  with  the  appendage  of  severe  penalties  to 
transgressors,  it  does  still  oblige  us  Christians" 
Subsequently  he  adds  :  "  For  though  Christen- 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  29 

dom  was  then"  (Henry's  time)  "  much  divided, 
yet  before  then  there  was  almost  a  general  con- 
sent upon  this  proposition,  that  the  Levitical  de- 
grees do  not,  by  any  law  of  God,  bind  Christians 
to  their  observance."  Thus  it  appears  the 
Puritan  has  fallen  into  an  unfortunate  anach- 
ronism. We  are  inclined  to  believe  he  quoted 
Taylor  at  second-hand,  without  examining  his 
work  for  himself. 

Taylor's  testimony,  in  regard  to  the  agreement 
on  the  proposition  he  names,  cannot  be  admit- 
ted ;  because  it  is  merely  negative,  and  his  ex- 
amination of  the  Schoolmen  was  altogether  too 
limited.  He  says  only  one  schoolman  dissented 
from  this  proposition.  In  this  he  appears,  from 
the  statement  of  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the 
Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  have 
been  entirely  mistaken.  This  historian  has 
given  an  abstract  of  what  was  published  about 
Henry's  divorce.  In  that  abstract,  after  stating 
the  explicit  testimony  both  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers  in  favor  of  the  permanent  obliga- 
tion of  the  Levitical  prohibitions,  he  says  :  "  They 
observed  that  the  same  doctrine  was  also  taught 
by  the  fathers  and  doctors  in  the  latter  ages ;" 


39  HISTORICAL  FACTS. 

and  then  particularly  names  seven  of  them.  He 
afterwards  adds  :  "  From  these  doctors  and 
fathers  the  inquiry  descended  to  the  Schoolmen, 
who  had  with  more  niceness  and  subtilty  ex- 
amined things.  They  do  all  agree  in  asserting 
the  obligation  of  these  Levitical  prohibitions." 
After  naming  a  number  of  the  Schoolmen,  he 
subjoins  :  "  All  the  Canonists  were  of  the  same 
mind."  How  entirely  opposite  is  this  positive 
and  specific  testimony  to  the  general  and  nega- 
tive testimony  of  Jeremy  Taylor  I* 

5.  The  decision  of  this  question  by  the  dif- 
ferent Universities  of  Europe  our  brother  dis- 
poses of  in  a  summary  way,  by  imputing  it  to 
corrupt  influence,  Henry's  power  and  gold.t 
An  accusation  is  one  thing,  and  proof  is  another 
thing,  entirely  different.  What  influence  had 
Henry  with  the  Universities  of  France,  in  oppo- 
sition to  that  of  the  Pope  and  the  King  of 
France  ?  But  passing  by  this  rash  insinuation, 
to  sustain  which  no  proof  is  attempted,  let  us 
look  at  what  is  said  by  the  Puritan  of  the  Pro- 

*  Burnet's  His.  vol.  i.  pp.  160-162,  New  York  edi- 
tion. 

t  Page  22,  last  paragraph. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  31 

testants  of  Germany  :  "  Though  all  this  did  not 
avail  to  secure  the  Protestants  of  Germany  in 
this  error."  Again,  p.  10,  2d  par.  :  "  The  Pro- 
testant Church  of  Europe,  at  that  early  day, 
seems  to  have  had  no  idea  that  the  law  of  Moses 
bound  us  in  this  particular."  He  then  quotes 
Luther  and  Melancthon  in  support  of  his  asser- 
tion. 

If  the  Puritan  had  read  Dr.  Livingston's 
dissertation  on  this  subject,  he  would  have  been 
preserved  from  this  unfounded  assertion  ;  for 
that  venerable  man  has  quoted  the  closing  part 
of  the  famous  letter  written  "  by  those  celebra- 
ted divines,  who,  in  the  name  of  their  Church, 
replied  to  the  inquiry  made  by  Henry  VIII„ 
whether  it  was  lawful  for  a  man  to  marry  his 
sister-in-law."  Let  it  be  transcribed  :  "  It  is 
manifest  and  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  law 
of  Levit.  18,  prohibits  a  marriage  with  a  sis- 
ter-in-law. This  is  to  be  considered  as  a  divine, 
a  natural,  and  a  moral  law,  against  which 
no  other  law  may  be  enacted  or  established 
Agreeably  to  this,  the  whole  Church  has  always 
retained  this  law,  and  judged  such  marriages 
incestuous.  Agreeably  to  this,  also,  the  de- 
crees of  Synods,  the  celebrated  opinions  of  the 


32  HISTORICAL    FACTS. 

most  holy  fathers,  and  even  civil  laws,  pro- 
hibit such  marriages,  and  pronounce  them  inces- 
tuous. Wherefore  we  also  judge  that  this  law 
is  to  be  preserved  in  all  the  Churches  as  a  di- 
vine, a  natural,  and  a  moral  law;  nor  will 
we  dispense  with  or  permit  in  our  Churches, 
that  such  marriages  shall  be  contracted :  and 
this  doctrine  we  can,  and,  as  God  shall  enable 
us,  we  will  resolutely  defend."*  Now  whatever 
Luther  or  Melancthon  may  have  hastily  written, 
it  is  not  likely  that  they,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, differed  from  these  brethren  of  their  Church, 
who,  having  solemnly  investigated  the  subject, 
wrote  their  noble  letter. 

Let  the  reader  turn  to  pp.  153  and  155  of  the 
Doctor's  dissertation,  and  he  will  see  that 
Zuinglius,  Calvin,  and  Ecolampadius  speak  in 
strong  language  about  the  binding  authority  of 
the  Levitical  law  of  marriage. 

Further,  to  show  the  views  entertained  by  the 
Protestant  Churches  of  Europe,  we  submit  for 
consideration  the  following  acts  of  the  Nation- 
al Synod  of  France.  In  the  second  National 
Synod,  held  at  Poictiers,  in  the  year  1560,  the 

*  Disser.  pp.  157,  158. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  S3 

question  of  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  under 
discussion,  was  decided.  The  following  is  their 
record :  "  May  a  man  lawfully  espouse  the  sis- 
ter of  his  deceased  wife,  who  has  left  him  chil- 
dren begotten  on  her  body  by  him  ?  To  which 
was  answered,  That  this  is  in  no  wise  lawful 
nor  expedient,  and  the  Church  must  see  to  it, 
that  no  such  marriages  be  solemnized  in  it."* 

In  the  records  of  the  transactions  of  the 
Fourth  National  Synod,  held  at  Lyons  in 
1563,  we  find  this  minute  :  "  It  being  demanded, 
Whether  it  were  only  a  prohibition  of  humane 
laws,  that  the  widow  of  a  deceased  brother  might 
not  be  married  to  his  surviving  brother  ?  The 
Council  answered,  That  such  marriages  were 
also  forbidden  by  the  word  of  God  ;  and  though, 
under  the  law  of  Moses,  it  was  ordained,  that, 
when  the  elder  brother  died  childless,  the 
younger  brother  should  raise  up  seed  to  him ; 
yet  this  was  only  a  temporary  law  to  God's  an- 
cient Israel,  and  intended  only  for  the  preserva- 
tion  and    distinction   of  their   tribes. "f     This 


*  Quick's  Synodicon,  vol.  i.  p.  18  ,  sect.  9. 
t  P.  40,  sect.  30. 

4 


34  HISTORICAL  FACTS. 

noble  body  of  Protestants  of  Europe  knew  how 
to  distinguish  between  what  was  temporary  and 
what  was  'permanent,  in  the  laws  of  Moses  :  and 
that  they  knew  how  to  distinguish  between  a 
civil  and  a  divine  ordinance,  may  be  seen  from 
a  record,  (p.  19,  sect.  23,)  where,  in  reference  to 
the  case  of  a  man,  who,  having  promised  mar- 
riage to  the  cousin-german  of  his  deceased  wife, 
had  carnally  known  her,  and  had  a  child  by  her, 
before  marriage,  it  was  answered  :  "  That  foras- 
much as  the  marriage  of  cousin-germans  is  not 
prohibited  by  the  word  of  God,  although  it  be  by 
our  magistrates,  it  is  advised,  That  they  shall 
separate  for  some  time,  and  make  public  con- 
fession of  their  fault  before  the  Church ;  and 
then  the  minister,  reproving  it,  and  admonish- 
ing that  none  offend  for  the  future  in  this  man- 
ner, they  shall  be  married." 

Here  is  decisive  proof  of  the  views  entertained 
by  the  Protestants  of  Europe,  in  regard  to  the 
binding  authority  of  this  law  of  Moses.  No  one 
will  affirm  that  these  Protestant  French  and 
Lutheran  divines  were  either  seduced  by  Hen- 
ry's bribes,  or  subdued  by  the  influence  of  his 
authority. 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  35 


CHAPTER   II. 

Subject  continued.— Grotius. — Calvin.— Selden. — Chief  Justice  Vau- 
ghan. — Jeremy  Taylor.— Chancellor  Kent.— Dr.  J.  P.  Wilson. — 
Judge  Story. — Change  of  Sentiment. — Its  Origin. 

6.  Having  already  noticed  how  the  Puritan 
has  erred  in  his  quotation  from  Jeremy  Taylor, 
this  may  be  the  proper  place  for  testing  his 
claims  to  certain  great  and  learned  men,  who, 
he  says,  (p.  23,)  "  have  plead  for  the  lawfulness 
of  such  marriages."  It  belongs  to  the  history 
of  this  subject. 

Grotius  heads  the  list.  By  what  authority 
this  great  and  learned  man  is  claimed  as  advo- 
cating the  Puritan's  cause,  does  not  appear. 
Reference  is  had  to  his  interpretation  of  Lev. 
18:  18,  (p.  21,  par.  2;)  but  it  will  appear  incon- 
clusive, when  compared  with  the  following  quo- 
tations;  which  prove — 1.  That  he  considered 


36  HISTORICAL    FACTS. 

the  Levitical  statutes  as  determining  the  limits 
of  marriages; — 2.  That  he  believed  them  to  be 
binding  on  all  men  ; — and  3.  That  he  asserts  they 
were  so  regarded  by  the  Primitive  Christians. 

Grotius  says,  "  The  next  question  is  about 
all  the  degrees  of  affinity,  and  the  degrees  of 
consanguinity  in  the  collateral  line;  those  es- 
pecially which  are  particularly  mentioned  in  the 
xviiith  of  Leviticus.  For  granting  that  those 
prohibitions  were  not  derived  from  the  mere  law 
of  nature,  yet  do  they  plainly  appear  to  have 
their  sanction  from  an  express  order  of  the  Di- 
vine Will  :  nor  is  this  such  an  order  as  obliges 
the  Jews  only,  but  all  mankind;  as  seems  to  be 
very  fairly  collected  from  those  words  of  God  to 
Moses,  "  Defile  not  yourselves  in  any  of  these 
things ;  for  in  all  these  the  nations  are  defiled, 
which  I  cast  out  before  you."  Again,  "  Ye 
shall  not  commit  any  of  these  abominations : 
neither  any  of  your  cwn  nation,  nor  any  stran- 
ger that  sojourneth  with  you  :  for  all  these  abomi- 
nations have  the  men  of  the  land  done,  which 
were  before  you,  and  the  land  is  defiled."* 

*  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pacis,  lib,  ii.  chap.  5.  sect.  13 
J.  Barbeyrae's  Trans. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  37 

In  section  14,  of  the  same  chapter,  he  says, 
"  But  yet  the  Primitive  Christians  were  very 
much  in  the  right  of  it,  who  voluntarily  observ- 
ed not  only  those  laws  which  were  given  in  com- 
mon to  all  men,  but  those  which  were  peculiarly 
designed  for  the  Hebrew  people ;  nay,  and  ex- 
tended the  bounds  of  modesty  to  some  farther 
degrees  of  relation,  that  in  this  virtue  too,  as 
well  as  in  all  others,  they  might  excel  the  Jews. 
And  that  this  was  done  early,  with  universal 
consent,  appears  from  the  Canons.  St.  Austin, 
speaking  of  cousin-germans,  both  by  the  father 
and  mother,  marrying  among  Christians, '  They,1 
says  he,  '  seldom  practise  what  the  law  allowed ; 
because,  though  the  law  of  God  has  not  forbid  it, 
they  dreaded,  however,  a  warrantable  action,  for 
its  nearness  to  what  is  unw arrant  able, ,'  " 

And  to  all  the  evidence  in  regard  to  the 
judgment  of  this  learned  man,  on  the  question 
already  presented,  may  be  added  this :  That 
in  his  comment  on  Levit.  18:  18,  (where,  if 
anywhere,  had  he  believed  it  lawful  for  a  man 
to  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  he  would 
have  asserted  the  lawfulness  of  such  a  mar- 
riage,) he  is  silent  on  the  point.     He  there  gives 

4* 


38  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

it  as  his  opinion  that  the  prohibition  refers  to 
marriage,  and  not  to  polygamy. 

Calvin  refuses  to  be  in  the  list  with  those  who 
he  believes  misinterpret  God's  law.  Hear  his 
strong  and  decided  language,  as  cited  by  Dr. 
Livingston,  in  his  Dissertation,  page  155 :  "  It 
is  sufficiently  known  in  what  degrees  of  consan- 
guinity, God,  in  his  law,  forbids  marriage. 
What  relates  to  the  degrees  of  affinity  is  equally 
obvious.  There  are  some  who  dispute,  or 
rather  cavil,  whether  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  man 
to  take  the  sister  of  his  deceased  wife;  and  they 
seize,  as  a  pretext,  upon  the  words,  Levit.  18 : 
18.,  during  her  lifetime.  But  their  error  is  re- 
futed by  the  very  words  of  that  text ;  because, 
what  is  there  condemned  by  Moses,  is  not  for 
incest,  but  for  cruelty  to  the  wife.  That  text 
actually  respects  Polygamy." 

Calvin  is  claimed  by  the  Puritan,  not  only 
without  proof,  but  against  positive  proof. 

Selden  is  net  found  in  the  list  on  page  23; 
but,  from  various  passages,  it  is  evident  the 
Puritan  intends  to  claim  alliance  with  this 
learned  man,  "  who,  as  an  oriental  scholar,"  he 
says,  "  saw  no  superior."     Hereafter  we  shall 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  39 

notice  quotations  from  Selden,  but  for  the  pres- 
ent we  only  remark,  that,  in  page  23,  first  par. 
he  represents  him  as  expressing  his  own  senti- 
ments, when,  in  fact,  he  only  recites,  as  a  histo- 
rian, the  sentiments  of  the  Jews,  collected  from 
Maimonides,  &c. 

Nothing  produced  by  the  Puritan  is  suffi- 
cient to  authorize  him  to  class  Selden  with  those 
who  vindicate  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  in 
question  ;  nor  have  we  seen  any  thing  in  his 
writings  to  justify  it.  One  thing  is  plain,  Sel- 
den, and  the  Talmudists,  and  the  Karaites, 
and  the  Hebrews  are  all  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  Puritans  doctrine,  "  that  these  statutes  in 
Lev.  xviiio  do  not  prohibit  marriage  at  all."  (P. 
6,  last  par.  of  the  chap.) 

Selden  was  a  lay-member  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  who  formed  the  Confession  of  Faith 
that  contains  the  article  on  the  subject  of  mar- 
riage so  much  opposed  at  present.  Had  he  be- 
lieved it  to  be  unscriptural,he  would  have  opposed 
its  adoption ;  but  from  the  history  of  the  labors 
of  that  venerable  body,  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  made  any  opposition.  To  an  article  of  the 
Church  government,  he  did  oppose  himself.    He 


40  HISTORICAL   FACTS 

was  an  Erastian  :  he  believed  and  maintained 
that  the  Jewish  Church  had  no  government  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  the  State;  and  that,  in  a 
Christian  country,  the  Church  ought  not  to  have 
a  government  distinct  from  that  of  the  State.  In 
support  of  his  views  he  brought  forth  all  the  rich 
stores  of  his  "Rabbinical  lore."  He  was  sup- 
ported by  the  celebrated  Lightfoot  and  other 
Erastians,  and  by  all  the  Independents  in  the 
Assembly.  But  all  in  vain.  He  was  met  in 
debate  by  Gillespie,  that  noble  young  Scotch 
Commissioner,  who,  by  "  a  speech  of  astonish- 
ing power  and  acuteness,"  overturned  the  foun- 
dation of  his  superstructure.  "  Selden  himself 
is  reported  to  have  said,  at  its  conclusion, 
1  That  young  man,  by  this  single  speech,  has 
swept  away  the  labors  often  years  of  my  life.'  "* 
In  regard  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  "  there 
prevailed,"  says  this  historian,  "  almost  an  en- 
tire and  perfect  harmony."  Only  two  subjects 
excited  difference  of  opinion  among  them  :  the 
doctrine  of  Election  and  Church  government! 

*  Hetherington's  History  of  the  West.  Assem  ,  pp. 
173.  174.  T  P.  242. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  41 

Chief  Justice  Vaughan,  who  lived  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  II,  is  claimed  as  favoring  the  marriage 
under  discussion.  His  influence,  whatever  it 
may  be  worth,  (though  even  he  regarded  this 
Jaw  as  referring  to  marriage,)  is  yielded.  It 
may  be  proper,  however,  to  let  the  reader  see 
the  grounds  of  his  opinion.  The  case  before 
him  was  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  great- 
aunt.  In  deciding  that  case  he  gave  his  opinion 
incidentally  of  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  of 
a  man  with  his  deceased  wife's  sister. 

The  grounds  of  his  opinion  are  : 

1.  An  assumption,  without  proof  ,  that  part  of 
the  law  in  Levit.  xviii.  is  judaical  positive  law, 
and  therefore  not  binding  on  Christians. 

2.  He  affirms  that  such  marriages  were  allowed 
by  the  Jewish  "  Forum"  to  be  lawful. 

3.  He  says,  "  The  clearest  way  to  understand 
any  law  is  by  what  was  the  story  and  judgment 
of  those  people,  and  the  times  in  which  it  was 
practical." 

Here  the  Chief  Justice  overlooks  the  fact  that 
the  law,  to  which  he  refers,  has  been  a  practical 
law  in  every  age  of  the  Church  since  its  enact- 
ment, and  suffers  himself  to  be  guided  by  the 


42  HISTORICAL    FACTS. 

judgment  of  the  Jewish  people,  in  one  of  their 
most  corrupt  periods,  at  the  distance  of  1500 
years  from  the  first  publication  of  the  law  by 
Moses. 

4.  He  represents  the  judgment  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  as  being  incomparably  superior  to 
that  of  the  Karaites,  and  assigns  as  a  proof, 
(referring  to  what  our  Saviour  says  of  them,) 
"  They  had  Moses'  authority,"  Matt.  23  :  2— 
as  if  our  blessed  Lord  intended,  by  his  remark, 
that  his  disciples  should  place  implicit  reliance 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  law  by  those  teachers 
whom,  in  this  very  chapter,  he  upbraids  as 
11  blind  leaders  of  the  blind  !" 

5.  Speaking  of  Acts  15  :  28,  29,  1  Cor. 
10  :  27-32,  he  says,  "  These  were  not  given  as 
precepts,  but  as  counsels."  "  Rom.  2  :  14,"  he 
says,  "  does  clearly  affirm  that  the  law  of  Moses 
was  not  given  to  the  Gentiles."  Surprising  ! 
The  apostle  is  speaking  of  the  moral  law,  that 
law  which  was  written  on  the  hearts  of  the 
Gentiles  ;  and  the  Chief  Justice  asserts,  the 
apostle  here  teaches  us  that  it  was  not  given  to 
the  Gentiles !  It  had  not  been  revealed  to  them 
as  it  had  been  revealed  to  the  Jews ;  but,  beyond 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  43 

doubt,  it  had  been  given   to  them,  for  it  was 
written  on  their  hearts. 

"  And  Rom.  3  :  2  shows,"  says  the  Judge, 
"  that  this  law,  called  the  Oracle  of  God,  was 
committed  to  the  Jews  only."  What  an  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  !  The  oracles  of  God  is 
the  law  !  !  , 

If  the  opinion  delivered  by  the  Chief  Justice, 
from  which  these  extracts  have  been  taken,  dis- 
plays learning  and  legal  acumen,  the  extracts 
speak  little  in  favor  of  his  acquaintance  with  the 
Scriptures  and  ability  to  interpret  them.* 

Grotius,  we  have  seen,  maintained  the  law  in 
Levit.  18  :  6-18,  to  be,  in  all  its  parts,  binding, 
by  an  express  order  of  the  Divine  Will,  not  only 
on  the  Jews,  but  on  all  mankind  ;  and  had  Chief 
Justice  Vaughan  followed  him  whom  he  styles, 
in  his  discussion,  "  the  greatest  of  human  author- 
ities" he  would  have  arrived  at  a  very  different 
opinion  on  this  important  subject. 

With  this  opinion,  delivered  in  the  22d  year 
of  Charles  II,  the  reader  may  compare  a  recent 
opinion,  delivered  Feb.  1804,  by  Sir  William 

*  See  2  Vent.  pp.  16-22. 


44  HISTORICAL    FACTS. 

Scott,  afterwards  Lord  Stowell ;  speaking  of 
whom,  Chancellor  Kent  says  :  "  An  incestuous 
connexion  between  an  uncle  and  niece  has  been 
recently  adjudged,  by  a  great  master  of  public 
and  municipal  law,  to  be  a  nuisance  extremely 
offensive  to  the  laws  and  manners  of  society,  and 
tending  to  endless  confusion,  and  the  pollution 
of  the  sanctity  of  private  life."* 

Jeremy  Taylor  is  placed  in  the  Puritan's  list, 
as  pleading  for  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage 
before  us.  We  have  already  shown  (p.  28)  how 
our  brother  has  misquoted  this  writer,  and  this 
led  us  to  suspect  he  might  be  mistaken  in  class- 
ing him  as  he  does.  As  the  place  is  not  cited, 
we  were  subjected  to  the  trouble  of  several  hours' 
search  in  his  work  to  find  the  authority.  The 
result  of  our  labor  is  this  :  J.  Taylor  enumerates 
the  following  to  be  unlawful  marriages  : — 

I.  Between  parents  and  children.  They  are 
unnatural.  2.  Between  brothers  and  sisters. 
They  are  incestuous,  prohibited  by  positive  law. 
"  This  discourse,"  he  says,  "  is  not  intended  so 
much  as  secretly  to  imply,  that  it  can  now  at  all 

*  Kent,  2  Com.  p.  82. 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  45 

be,  or  be  made  lawful,  or  is  at  any  hand  to  be- 
endured  :  for  the  marriage  of  brother  and  sister 
is  against  a  secondary  law  of  nature  ;  that  is,  it 
stands  next  to  the  natural  prohibition,  and  is 
against  a  natural  reason,  though  not  against  a 
prime  natural  law."  3.  Between  a  man  and 
his  father's  wife.  He  regards  it  as  unnatural. 
4.  Between  uncles  and  nieces.  Unlawful  by 
positive  precept.  5.  He  contends  that  the  mar- 
riage of  cousin-germans  is  lawful. 

We  could  not  find  the  place  in  which  he 
pleads  in  favor  of  the  marriage  of  a  man  with 
his  deceased  wife's  sister. 

"  Affinity"  he  says,  "  makes  conjunctions 
equal  to  these  of  consanguinity  ;  and,  therefore, 
thou  must  not  uncover  the  nakedness  which  is 
thine  in  another  person  of  blood  or  affinity,  or 
else  is  thy  father's  or  mother's,  thy  brother's  or 
thy  sister's,  thy  son's  or  thy  daughter's  nakedness. 
This  is  all  that  can  be  pretended  to  be  forbidden 
by  virtue  of  these  wcrds,  near  of  kin  cr  the  near- 
ness of  t  hy  fles  h."* 

Hooker  and  Doddridge  are  set  down  as  plead- 


Ductor  Dubitantium,  pp.  ££5-231. 

K 


46  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

ing  in  favor  of  this  marriage  ;  but  as  no  reference 
is  given  of  the  places  where  they  have  expressed 
their  opinion,  we  have  been  unable  to  find  them. 

Of  Luther  and  Melancthon  we  have  already 
spoken.     (P.  32.) 

Chancellor  Kent  certainly  has  not  "pleaded 
for  the  lawfulness  of  such  marriages.;'  In  his 
Commentaries,*  after  naming  N.  Webster  on  the 
one  side  and  Dr.  Livingston  on  the  other,  he  says, 
•'It  is  not  my  object  to  meddle  with  that  ques- 
tion ;  but  such  a  marriage  is  clearly  not  inces- 
tuous or  invalid  by  our  municipal  law." 

Dr.  J.  P.  Wilson  has  published  no  opinion 
on  the  subject.  We  knew  him  for  many  years, 
and  never  heard  him  utter  his  sentiments,  nor  did 
we  ever  hear  that  he  had  till  we  read  the  Puritan. 

Judge  Story,  in  his  Conflict  of  Laws,  says, 
Grctius  "  maintains,  in  strong  terms,  that  there  is 
no  foundation  for  the  prohibition  ;"  and  then 
quotes  from  the  original  Latin  the  following 
words  as  proof :  "  And  by  the  most  ancient 
canons,  which  are  called  Apostolical,  he  who 
married  two  sisters  one  after  the  other,  cr  his 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  85,  note  a. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  47 

niece,  that  is,  his  brother's  or  sister's  daughter, 
was  only  incapacitated  for  the  ministerial 
office."* 

Now,  let  the  reader  look  at  this  insulated 
quotation,  and  find,  if  he  can,  that  Grotius  even 
thought  such  marriages  to  be  lawful.  If  they 
were  lawful,  why  should  any  contracting  them 
be  rendered  incapable  of  holding  the  ministerial 
office,  and  be  punished  for  doing  no  wrong  ? 

But,  when  it  is  considered  that,  in  the  very 
section  from  which  the  quotation  is  taken  by 
Judge  Story,  and  immediately  preceding  it, 
Grotius  states  the  marriages  of  parents  and 
children,  and  of  brothers  and  sisters,  to  be  so  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  nature  as  to  be  "  null  and 
void,"  "  but  that  the  case  is  not  the  same  as  to 
laws  concerning  other  degrees,  since  they  are 
rather  made  to  prevent  certain  inconveniences 
than  to  direct  men  from  a  thing  that  is  in  itself 
dishonest;"  and  further,  that  he  had,  in  his  pre- 
ceding section,  (see  above  p.  36,)  asserted  that 
the  prohibitions  in  Levit  xviii.,  in  all  the  degrees 
of  affinity  as  well   as  of  consanguinity,   in  the 

*  Note  p.  105,  2d  edition. 


48  HISTORICAL   FACTS, 

collateral  line,  are  sanctioned  "  by  an  express 
order  of  the  Divine  Will  " — an  order  obliging 
not  only  the  Jews,  "  but  all  mankind" — is  it  not 
apparent  that  the  learned  Judge  has  really  "  no 
foundation"  for  his  assertion?* 

Now,  in  opposition  to  the  Puritan's  list  of 
distinguished  men  "  who  have  plead  for  the  law- 
fulness of  such  marriages,"  (p.  23,)  we  place  all 
the  Reformers,  the  celebrated  Divines  of  the 
Lutheran  Church,  the  Synod  of  Dort,  the  Na- 
tional Synod  of  France,  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  Church  of 
England,  &x.  &.c. 

7.  But  all  will  not  avail  us.  The  unlawful- 
ness of  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  deceased 
wife's  sister,  has  a  Popish  origin,  and  the  Pro- 
testant Church  has  not  been  able  to  free  herself 
from  the  error  to  this  day.  (See  the  Puritan, 
p.  22,  second  paragraph  and  p.  23,  first  par.) 
Grotius  states  that  Primitive  Christians  regard- 
ed the  Levitical  deorees  as  binding  on  the 
Church,  (see  above,  p.  36,  37  J  and  the  Puritan 

*  De  Jure  Belli  et   Pacis,  lib.  ii.  chap.  5,  §  13,  14. 
J  Barbeyrac's  trans. 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  49 

admits  the  marriage  in  question  had  been  con- 
demned by  "  the  Council  of  Neo-Csesarea,  A. 
D  314,  and  that  of  Elvira,  A.  D.  305."  But  all 
this  he  sets  aside  by  a  sweeping  remark  : 
"  Though  it  is  true  that  Popery  inform  was  not 
established  so  early,  many  of  the  corruptions  of 
Popery  came  into  being  long  before  that."  He 
then  goes  on  and  describes  the  corrupt  state  of 
the  Church  in  future  times,  and  thinks  he  has 
made  out  the  impure  origin  of  the  prohibition. 

His  argument  is — The  Church  of  Rome,  in 
subsequent  periods,  gave  rise  to  unscriptural 
rules  relating  to  marriage  ;  therefore  this  pro- 
hibition was  unscriptural,  and  derived  its  exist- 
ence from  Papal  influence. 

Let  the  Unitarian  seize  this  weapon,  and 
how  would  he  use  it  in  trying  to  demolish  the 
glorious  fabric  of  our  common  Christianity  ! 
Your  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  Godhead 
of  Jesus  Christ,  of  his  vicarious  atonement,  of 
the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are  to  be  found,  not  in  the  Bible,  but  in  Papal 
devices. 

"  But,"  says  our  brother,  "  the  last  fifty  years 
have  developed  a  great   advance  of  the  public 

5* 


50  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

mind  towards  the  truth."  (P.  23.)  And  what 
was  the  state  of  the  public  mind  fifty  years  ago? 
In  the  middle  of  the  last  century  Voltaire  and 
his  impious  associates  formed  their  conspiracy 
against  Christianity,  and  labored  diligently, 
in  their  unholy  vocation,  to  overturn  the  Church 
of  Christ,  and  to  bless  the  world  with  the  reign 
of  infidelity  and  Atheism.  Their  efforts  were 
crowned  with  most  alarming  success.  Freder- 
ick the  Great  of  Prussia  patronized  Voltaire. 
Princes  and  crowned  heads  were  poisoned  with 
infidelity.  The  French  Revolution  burst  forth 
like  a  terrible  and  destructive  volcano.  Infidel- 
ity became  ascendant.  Religion  was  laughed 
to  scorn.  The  Sabbath  was  abolished.  The 
goddess  of  reason  was  enthroned  and  worshipped. 
The  baneful  influence  of  infidelity  and  atheism 
was  spread  more  or  less  over  a  large  part  of  Eu- 
rope. Nor  did  this  country  escape  the  misera- 
ble contagion.  Such  was  the  depressed  state  of 
religion  and  the  prevalence  of  infidelity  about 
fifty  years  ago,  that  a  venerable  Theological 
Professor  advised  his  pupils  (the  writer  heard 
him)  to  prepare  their  minds  for  a  season  of  per- 
secution. 


HISTORICAL   FACTS.  51 

Such  was  the  actual  slate  of  Europe  and  of 
this  country  at  the  time  when,  the  Puritan  says, 
"  a  great  advance  of  the  public  mind  towards 
the  truth  was  developed."  Was  it  truth  or  was 
it  error,  towards  which  the  advance  was  made  ? 
Certainly  the  state  of  things  was  not  favorable 
to  religious  truth.  While  the  public  mind  was 
thus  shrouded  with  darkness,  and  the  public 
eye  shut  against  the  light  of  divine  revelation, 
the  minds  of  men  were  not  prepared  for  discern- 
ing religious  duty,  and  enacting  laws  for  pro- 
tecting the  sanctity  of  marriage,  and  securing 
domestic  purity.  The  removal  of  restraints  on 
sensual  passions  by  human  legislators,  in  such 
circumstances,  a  wise  man  would  naturally  look 
upon  with  a  suspicious  eye.  Indeed,  what  the 
Puritan  regards  as  a  great  advance  of  the  pub- 
lic mind  towards  the  truth,  we  regard  as  a  re- 
trograde movement  towards  error.  And  judging 
merely  from  the  actual  state  of  things  when  it 
commenced,  we  think  there  is  better  ground  for 
our  opinion,  than  the  actual  state  of  things  in 
the  early  period  of  Christianity  furnished  our 
brother  for  his  opinion  about  the  Popish  origin 
of  the  prohibition  against  which  he  contends. 


52  HISTORICAL   FACTS. 

Let  it  be  also  observed,  that  in  this  "  advance 
towards  the  truth/'  the  State  has  taken  the  lead. 
In  former  acres  the  Church  went  before  the  State. 
She  received  the  law  of  her  God  on  the  subject 
of  marriage;  and  from  her  example,  and  the  light 
of  Christianity  which  she  diffused  abroad,  the 
laws  of  the  Roman  Empire  derived  such  a  salu- 
tary improvement  in  regard  to  this  fundamental 
institution  in  human  society.  But  now  the 
Puritan  would  have  the  State  to  reform  the 
Church.  "  In  this  country,"  he  says,  (p.  23,) 
"  all  the  States  but  one  allow  of  the  marriage  of 
a  wife's  sister.  In  the  Protestant  States  of 
Europe,  the  case  is  similar.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  Prussia,  Saxony,  Hanover,  Baden, 
Mecklenberg,  Hamburg,  Denmark,  and  most 
other  Protestant  States,  such  marriages  may  be 
contracted."     Here  is  a  numerical  display. 

It  would  require  much  labor  to  test  fully  the 
correctness  of  this  statement.  As  it  is  unneces- 
sary, we  only  remark,  that,  with  the  exception  of 
Prussia  and  Denmark,  the  European  States 
enumerated  are  small ;  that  beyond  this  number 
we  are  unable  to  count  more  than  four  or  five 
other  Protestant   States  in   Europe ;    and   that 


HISTORICAL    FACTS.  53 

England,  and  Scotland,  and  Holland  do  not  al- 
low  these  marriages  :  yet  the  Puritan  swells 
his  enumeration  by  the  additional  clause,  "  most 
other  Protestant  States  of  Europe  !"  Judge 
Story  has,  in  his  Conflict  of  Laws,  the  same 
enumeration,  and  the  same  additional  clause.* 
Probably  our  brother,  copying  from  the  Judge, 
was  led  into  the  mistake  by  his  guide. 

But  whatever  change  has  taken  place  in  the 
laws  of  States  in  regard  to  marriage,  no  change 
is  stated  by  the  Puritan  to  have  occurred  in  the 
laws  of  the  Churches.  If  any  have  been  made 
by  the  Churches  of  Germany  we  are  not  inform- 
ed ;  and,  when  it  is  considered  how  those  once 
flourishing  Protestant  Churches  have  been  swept 
over  by  the  blighting  influence  of  infidelity  ;  and 
how  the  pulpits,  from  which  formerly  was  heard 
the  pure  and  holy  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  are 
now  occupied  by  Errorists  and  Neologists,  who 
mislead  and  deceive  the  people  ;  who  would  be 
surprised  to  hear  that  a  change  in  the  practice 
of  the  Churches  has  occurred,  as  unscriptural 
and  deleterious  as  what  has  occurred  in  the  life- 
giving  doctrines  of  divine  revelation? 

*  Page  105,  note,  2d  edition. 


54  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 


CHAPTER    III. 

Consequences  of  the  Puritan's   principles.— Church  destitute  of  a 
law  of  Incest. — Impiobable. 

The  design  of  the  Puritan  is  to  establish, 
and  he  thinks  he  has  established,  two  points  : — 

I.  That  the  laic  of  Lev  it.  xviii.  is  repealed, 
and  not  binding  on  the  Christian  Church. 

II.  That  it  has  no  reference  to  marriage. 
To  the  establishment  of  the  first  point,  the 

author's  first  chapter  is  devoted.  Towards  the 
close  of  the  fifth  page  is  this  paragraph  :  "Be- 
sides, should  we  admit  that  there  is,  in  the  law 
of  nature,  a  prohibition  of  the  marriage  of  a 
wife's  sister,  that  prohibition  is,  as  we  have 
shown,  not  in  these  texts  themselves,  but  in 
them  as  authenticated  by  the  law  of  nature. 
The  prohibition  comes  in  this  form :  '  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,   speaking  through  the  voice  of 


puritan's  principles.  55 

nature,'  arid  not,  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  speak- 
ing through  a  repealed  code.'  So  that  our  op- 
ponents are,  in  truth,  as  much  without  scriptural 
prohibitions  as  we  are." 

The  following  quotation  from  the  close  of  his 
first  chapte.r  (p.  6)  is  ample  proof  of  the  second 
point :  "It  will   be   shown  in  the  sequel,  that 
these    statutes    in  Levit.  xviii.    do  not  prohibit 
marriage  at  all.     And  of  course  they  do  not 
prohibit  marriage  between  brother  and  sister. 
So  that,   at   any  rate,   the   dreaded   alternative 
must  take  its  course.     And  these  statutes,  re- 
pealed or  unrepealed,   cannot  help  them  to  find 
an  inspired  and  written  prohibition  against  the 
marriage  of  a  sister.     The  argument  of  our  op- 
ponents is, — That  if  the  marriage  of  a  wife's  sis- 
ter is  not  prohibited  to  us,  in  this  chapter,   then 
the  marriage  of  our  sisters  is  nowhere  prohibit- 
ed in  the  Bible.     And  we  answer, — If  the  mar- 
riage of  our   sisters  is  prohibited  nowhere  else, 
it  is  prohibited  nowhere  in  the  Bible.     For  it 
surely  is  not  prohibited  here,  as  we  shall  show. 
And  we  totally  deny,  that  it  is  self-evident  that 
such   an  express  prohibition   is,  and  must  be, 
found  in  the  Bible." 


56  CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE 

This  is  not  the  place  to  examine  the  sound- 
ness of  the  author's  arguments.  Our  object  is, 
at  present,  to  let  the  reader  see  distinctly  what 
the  Puritan  aims  at  establishing.  Hereafter  we 
hope  to  show  the  entire  fallacy  of  the  arguments 
on  which  he  rests  his  cause.  Yet  the  last  sen- 
tence in  the  above  quotation  calls  for  a  passing 
remark.  Did  the  Puritan  ever  read,  in  any  re- 
spectable writers,  what  he,  by  his  strong  denial, 
seems  to  impute  to  his  opponents — that  they  as- 
sert it  to  be  "  self-evident,  that  an  express  pro- 
hibition is,  and  must  be,  found  in  the  Bible?" 
We  never  heard  such  an  assertion  from  any  man. 
Why,  then,  has  he  so  misrepresented  the  posi- 
tion we  take  1  When  we  make  such  an  asser- 
tion, and  net  before,  will  it  be  fair  for  him  to 
come  out  with  such  an  emphatic  denial. 

Now,  let  the  reader  search  through  the  Puri- 
tan's pamphlet  to  find,  if  he  can,  where  he 
shows,  in  God's  inspired  word,  is  contained  a 
prohibition  against  the  marriage  of  brother  and 
sister.  We  cannctfind  it.  He  makes  no  attempt 
to  discover  such  a  prohibition.  He  only  shews 
we  are  not  destitute  cf  scriptural  intimation  in 
regard  to  marriage  :  "  We  are  net  wholly  with- 


puritan's  principles.  57 

out  scripture  intimations  of  duty  on  this  subject. 
Against  the  marriage  of  parents  and  children 
God's  will  is  intimated,  in  that  a  man  shall  leave 
his  father  and  mcther  when  he  cleaves  to  his 
wife."  (P.  5.)  Now,  if  the  Puritan  had  inform- 
ed his  readers  that  this  intimation  is  recorded  by 
Moses  in  Gen.  2  :  24  ;  that  cur  Redeemer  quoted 
it,  in  a  conversation  with  the  Pharisees  ;  and 
that  it  is  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  by 
Matthew,  chap.  19 :  5,  he  would  have  furnish- 
ed them  with  a  proof  from  Turrdtin's  third  test, 
(p.  4,)  that  this  Levitical  law  is  binding  on 
Christians.     But  mere  of  this  hereafter. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  Puritan  thinks  he 
has  prove  J, 

First,  that  the  law  in   Lcvit.  xviii.  is  repeal- 
ed, and  is  not  binding  on  the  Christian  Church  ; 
Secondly,  that  it  has  no  reference  to  marriage 
at  all,   and  does   not  prohibit  the  marriage 
of  brothers  and  sisters.     Nor  does  he  pro- 
duce   any    scriptural    prohibition    against   such 
marriages  in  the  Old  Testament. 
What  f  Hows  from  these  positions? 
1.  If  they  be   true  it  follows,  ns  a  necessary 
consequence,  that  the  Church  of  God  under  the 

6 


58  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

Old  Testament  dispensation  had  no  written  law, 
except  the  intimation  in  Gen.  2  :  24,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  incestuous  marriages  ;  but  was  left  en- 
tirely to  the  light  of  nature  on  this  most  impor- 
tant part  of  moral  duty,  so  intimately  connected 
with  domestic  purity  and  sound  morals  in  the 
community. 

2.  A  second  indubitable  consequence  is,  that 
the  Christian  Church,  at  its  first  establishment, 
was  destitute  of  any  inspired  written  rule  on  this 
interesting  subject ;  and  that  it  now  is,  and  ever 
has  been,  in  this  (as  we  feel  disposed  to  term  it) 
sad  destitution. 

Is  this,  we  ask,  probable  ?  Is  it  probable  the 
Church  on  which  God  has  shed  such  light,  by 
his  written  word,  on  every  other  point  of  doc- 
trine and  duty,  has  received  none  on  this  deeply 
interesting  subject  ?  Is  she,  in  this  particular, 
left  in  the  same  condition  as  the  heathen,  with- 
out any  inspired  written  rule  to  mark  the  degrees 
in  which  marriage  is  not  allowed]  Can  brothers 
and  sisters  now  marry  without  violating  any 
written  law  against  such  connexions  1  Now 
we  do  not  say,  what  our  brother  imputes  to  us, 
"  that  it  is  self-evident  that  such  an  express  pro- 


puritan's  principles.  59 

hibition  is,  and  must  be,  found  in  the  Bible," 
(p.  6;)  nor  would  we  "  say,  a  priori,  that  it  con- 
flicts with  the  wisdom  of  God  to  leave  this  cir- 
cumstance of  the  divine  ordinance  of  marriaae 
to  human  legislation,  just  as  he  has  left  the  regu- 
lation of  most  circumstances  respecting  the 
divine  ordinance  of  government."  (P.  5.) 

But  we   may  remark,  the  ordinance  of  mar- 
riage lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  ordinance  of 
government;    and    laws  enacted   to  guard  the 
former  against  abuse  and  to  protect  from  pollu- 
tion this  original  fountain  of  morals,   will  most 
effectually  secure  good  morals  in  the  civil  com- 
munity.     It  is  of  the  first  importance  to  lay  the 
foundation  of  a   building  well ;  and  on  this  ac- 
count every  builder  will  pay  to  the  foundation 
special  attention,  and  guard  it  against  every  de- 
fect.    Besides,  when  we  recollect  what  particu- 
lar instructions  are  given  in  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
in  regard  to  the  duties  of  kings,  and  rulers,  and 
judges  ;  in  regard  to  the  duties  of  subjects  or 
citizens,  not  to  resist  government,   but  submit 
to  authority  and  to  pay  taxes,  and  to  pray  "  for 
kings  and  all  in  authority,  that  we  may  lead  a 
quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  godliness  and  hon- 


69  CONSEQUENCES  OF    THE 

esty  ;"  and  in  regard  to  the  duties  of  slaves  and 
masters;  it  may  be  asked,  whit  circumstances 
respecting  the  divine  ordinance  of  government 
are  left  unnoticed,  except  the  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  the  manner  in  which  power  is  to  be 
distributed  ;  how  the  laws  are  to  be  framed,  and 
what  penalties  are  to  be  annexed  to  them  ?  Has 
the  supreme  Lawgiver  given  such  particular  in- 
struction in  regard  to  his  ordinance  of  govern- 
ment, and  said  no  more,  in  his  written  word,  on 
the  subject  of  incest  than  may  be  gathered  from 
his  intimation  in  Gen.  2  :  24  ?  Has  He  left  the 
rest,  so  intimately  connected  with  moral  purity 
and  human  happiness,  to  the  legislation  of  men 
apt  to  err  under  the  influence  of  strong  passions 
pleading  for  indulgence,  and  guided  by  reason, 
where  it  is  so  incompetent  to  lead  ?  The  exact 
boundaries  in  this  matter  human  reason  cannot 
determine.  He  who  formed  man,  instituted 
marriage  for  the  propagation  of  our  race,  and 
constituted  the  nature  of  things ;  He  alone  has 
knowledge  and  wisdom  sufficient  to  determine 
the  limits  of  marriage. 

It  is  not  for  us  to  determine  a  priori  what  In- 
finite Wisdom  ought  to  do ;  but  when  we  know 


puritan's  principles.  61 

I 

what  God  has  taught  on  one  important  subject, 
we  may  humbly  and  reverently  infer  He  has 
not  left  us  without  instruction,  on  a  kindred 
subject  of  similar  importance  to  our  purity  and 
happiness.  Look  at  the  moral  law.  Mankind 
were  not  wholly  ignorant  of  their  duty.  The 
inspired  writer  says,  (Rom.  2 :  14,  15,)  "  For 
when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves ; 
which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness, 
and  their  thoughts  the  mean  while  accusing,  or 
else  excusing  one  another."  It  appears,  then, 
from  the  testimony  of  Paul,  that  the  Gentile  na- 
tions, while  destitute  of  divine  revelation,  were 
acquainted  with  the  great  principles  of  the  mo- 
ral law ;  their  moral  sense  and  reason  taught 
them,  in  some  measure,  the  duties  it  required. 
But  God  did  not  leave  his  people  to  those  im- 
perfect sources  of  instruction.  They  needed 
greater  light  and  more  perfect  instruction  ;  and, 
in  infinite  mercy,  He  was  pleased  to  impart  what 
they  needed.  From  the  summit  of  Mount  Sinai, 
the  glorious  Lawgiver  proclaimed,  in  circum- 

6* 


62  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

* 

stances  of  awful  grandeur,  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  afterwards  engraved  them  on  two 
tables  of  stone  ;  and  thus  furnished  them  with  a 
complete  written  summary  of  moral  duties,  in  all 
their  branches.  Nor  did  his  kindness  here  cease. 
Many  inspired  teachers  were,  in  successive  ages, 
raised  up  to  explain  and  unfold  the  duties  so 
comprehensively  set  forth  in  the  ten  command- 
ments ;  till  his  own  Son  came,  and  his  inspired 
apostles,  who  threw  additional  light  on  the 
moral  law,  and  explained  it  in  all  its  spiritual 
and  extensive  meaning. 

Now,  when  all  this  is  duly  considered,  does  it 
appear  probable  that  God  has  left  the  subject  of 
incest,  a  branch  of  moral  duty  so  important,  in 
that  imperfect  state  of  instruction  in  which  the 
Puritan  has  placed  it?  There  is  no  presump- 
tion in  this  question.  We  only  infer,  from  what 
God  has  done  for  his  Church  in  one  particular, 
what  He  has  probably  done  for  her  in  another. 
From  the  light  which  He  has  shed  upon  the  mo- 
ral law,  we  are  led  to  believe  He  has  not  with- 
held proportional  light  on  the  law  of  Incest.  By 
this  we  do  not  determine  what  Infinite  Wisdom 
ought  to  communicate  to  his  Church. 


puritan's  principles.  63 

Can  the  Puritan,  then,  be  right  in  the  conclu- 
sions to  which  he  has  come ?  Is  it  credible, 
that  the  instructions  given  in  the  Bible  on  the 
subject  of  incest  are  so  imperfect?  Has  God 
imparted  to  His  Church  scarce  a  single  addi- 
tional ray  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  left  it  to 
human  legislation  to  determine  the  limits  within 
which  it  is  unlawful  to  contract  marriage?  Is 
(we  repeat  the  question)  this  credible  1 

In  the  sequel  we  h  :pe  to  be  able  to  show  the 
reasoning  of  this  writer  to  be  entirely  fallacious, 
on  the  leading  points  which  he  has  established. 

We  believe  that  God  has  given  to  his  Church 
a  law  of  incest  and  marriage,  and  that  this  law 
is  found  recorded  in  Levit.  18 :  6-18.  It  can, 
we  think,  be  proved  that  this  law  is  a  permanent 
ecclesiastical  law,  neither  civil  or  judicial,  nor 
repealed ; — that  it  refers  to  marriage  and  pre- 
scribes its  limits  ; — and  that  it  is  one  law,  and  a 
natural  law.  If  we  shall  succeed  in  establishing 
all  these  points,  the  way  will  be  prepared  for 
proving  the  particular  marriage  under  discussion 
to  be  unlawful. 


64  LEVIT1CAL    LAW 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Perpetuity  of  the  Levitical  law.— Proofs. — Puritan's  aigument. — His 
guide. — Criterion  not  rightly  applied. — Turrettin. — Quotation  from 
Chancellor  Kent.— Quotations  from  Puffendorf.— From  Selden  and 
Grotius. 

Before  we  enter  on  the  argument,  it  may  be 
proper  to  notice  two  things. in  the  Puritan. 

1.  "  We  profess,"  he  says,  (p.  3,)  "  to  present, 
with  such  brevity  and  clearness  as  we  are  able, 
the  reasons  which  have  convinced  us  that  such 
marriages  are  prohibited  by  the  law  of  God. 
The  argument  brought  against  them  from  Scrip- 
ture is  contained  in  a  nutshell,  and  is  easily 
sifted." 

Allow  our  brother  the  privilege  of  framing 
for  us  the  argument,  and  he  may  bring  it  within 
so  small  a  compass.  We  prefer  framing  it  our- 
selves. Two  things  are  plain  :  1.  His  argu- 
ment in  refuting  it,  spread  as  it  is,  with  that  of 


PERPETUAL.  65 

his  allies,  over  thirty-two  closely  printed  octavo 
pages,  has  not  been  inclosed  in  a  nut-shell. 
2.  Oar  argument,  designed  to  refute  his,  cannot, 
if  we  have  to  follow  him  in  all  its  windings,  be 
brought  within  such  narrow  limits. 

He  also  says,  immediately  after  the  quotation 
above,  "  The  whole  stress  of  that  argument  is 
laid  on  two  passages,  which  are  supposed  to  for- 
bid the  marriage  of  a  brother's  widow,  and  thus 
to  imply  the  prohibition  in  question — Lev.  18  : 
16,  and  2D :  21."  Here  he  is  mistaken.  We 
do  not  choose  to  place  our  fabric  on  a  part  of  the 
foundation,  when  we  have  the  whole  ample  and 
firm  for  its  support.  He  may  wish  it  there  ;  but 
we  rest  our  argument  on  the  whole  of  Lev.  xviii. 
from  the  first  to  the  eighteenth  verse  inclusive. 

2.  The  reason  for  enacting  these  statutes  as- 
signed  by  the  Puritan  appears  to  us  fanciful. 
(Seep.  11.)  We  are  unable  to  see  how  the  Isra- 
elites were  more  exposed  to  commit  lewdness  by 
incestuous  commerce  with  their  mothers,  or  sis- 
ters, or  aunts,  while  sojourning  in  tents  in 
the  wilderness,  than  when  settled  in  comfortable 
houses  in  the  promised  land.  The  necessary 
S3cresy  for  the  perpetration  of  such  vile  acts  of 


66  LEVITICAL    LAW 

iniquity  could,  it  seems  to  us,  be  found  in  houses 
more  easily  than  in  tents.  We  cannot  see  how 
these  statutes  "  were  especially  suited  to  the 
peculiar  sojourn  in  the  desert."  Has^the  writer 
forgotten  the  light  thrown  upon  the  camp  of 
Israel,  by  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night  1  By  this 
miraculous  provision  the  whole  camp  was  illu- 
minated every  night.  It  was  never  withdrawn, 
during  Israel's  sojourn  in  the  wilderness.  See 
Ex.  13 :  21,  22,  and  chap.  40 :  38. 

Our  final  remark  on  the  reason  assigned  for 
the  enactment  of  these  statutes  is  this :  we  are 
surprised  he  should  compare  statutes  prohibiting 
criminal  and  incestuous  acts  with  the  statutes 
in  Deut.  23  :  13,  &c. 

We  now  enter  on  the  argument  to  prove  the 
perpetuity  of  these  Levitical  statutes. 

That  they  are  the  law  of  the  supreme  Law- 
giver is  not  questioned.  He  gave  them  by  the 
hand  of  his  servant  Moses  to  his  chosen  people, 
as  a  rule,  in  the  opinion  of  multitudes  of  learned 
men,  prescribing  degrees  of  lawful  marriage,  or, 
as  the  Puritan  affirms,  as  a  rule  to  prohibit 
the  commission  of  "  single  acts  of  an  incestuous 
character."    (P.  11.)    Which  is  correct  ?    What 


PERPETI1AL.  67 

is  the  nature  of  this  law  ?  Is  it  ceremonial  or 
moral?  Manifestly  there  is  in  it  nothing  of  a 
ceremonial  kind.  Whichever  of  the  two  inter- 
pretations be  correct,  it  is  moral — designed  to 
regulate  the  conduct  of  rational  creatures,  to 
direct  the  intercourse  of  near  relations,  and  pre- 
vent their  sinning  against  their  Creator. 

Is  this  law  permanent  or  temporary?  Was  it 
intended  for  the  Church  in  all  ages,  or  only 
while  she  remained  under  the  Jewish  economy  \ 
Why  should  it  be  limited  to  one  period  ?  Do 
not  Christians  need  a  directory  for  marriage,  as 
well  as  the  Israelites?  Or,  if  it  be  regarded  as 
not  pertaining  to  marriage,  but  only  as  forbidding 
single  incestuous  acts,  must  not  the  prohibitions 
extend  to  them  ?  None  will  plead  for  liberty  to 
practise  the  lewdness  contemplated  in  these  pro- 
hibitory statutes. 

In  support  of  the  perpetuity  of  this  divine  law 
we  might  argue  from  what  is  said  by  the  Law- 
giver in  the  preface  :  "  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God.  After  the  doings  of  the  land  of 
Egypt>  wherein  ye  dwelt,  shall  ye  not  do  :  and 
after  the  doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  whither 


68  LEVITICAL  LAW 

I  bring  you,  shall  ye  not  do:  neither  shall  ye 
walk  in  their  ordinances.  Ye  shall  do  my  judg- 
ments, and  keep  mine  ordinances,  to  walk  there- 
in :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  Ye  shall  there- 
fore keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments  ;  which 
if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live  in  them.  I  am  the 
Lord."  Hcvv  emphatic  end  solemn  the  intro- 
duction !  Was  it  not  designed  to  call  up  the 
attention  of  Israel  to  something  important  and 
permanent?  If  the  whole  of  what  followed  had 
been  of  a  ceremonial  or  temporary  character, 
would  it  have  been  introduced  by  language  so 
impressive  and  august? 

We  may  reason,  too,  in  favor  of  the  perpe- 
tuity of  this  law,  (as  Grcthis,  and  many  before 
and  after  him,  have,)  from  the  language  of  the 
great  Lawgiver  subsequent  to  the  publication  of 
it :  "  Defile  not  yourselves  in  any  of  these  things  : 
for  in  all  these  the  nations  are  defiled,  which  I 
cast  out  before  ycu  :  and  the  land  is  defiled: 
therefore  I  do  visit  the  iniquity  thereof  upon  it ; 
and  the  land  itself  vomiteth  out  her  inhabitants. 
Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  and  my 
judgments,  and  shall  net  commit  any  of  these 
abominations;  neither  any  of  your  own  nation, 


PERPETUAL.  69 

nor  any  stranger  that  sojourneth  with  you :  (for 
all  these  abominations  have  the  men  of  the  land 
done,  which  were  before  you ;  and  the  land  is 
defiled;)  that  the  land  spue  you  not  out  also, 
when  ye  defile  it,  as  it  spued  out  the  nations 
that  were  before  you.  For  whosoever  shall 
commit  any  of  these  abominations,  even  the 
souls  that  commit  them  shall  be  cut  off  from 
among  their  people.  Therefore  shall  ye  keep 
mine  ordinances,  that  ye  commit  not  any  of 
these  abominable  customs,  which  were  committed 
before  you,  and  that  ye  defile  not  yourselves 
therein  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God." 

Here  the  Canaanites  are  charged  with  the 
guilt  of  violating  the  duties  enjoined  by  these 
statutes.  It  follows,  of  course,  the  observance 
of  them  must  have  been  obligatory  on  them  ;  and 
if  they  were  bound  by  them,  how  can  we  be  free 
from  their  obligation  ? 

It  is  unnecessary  to  inquire  how  far  the  Ca- 
naanites were  guilty.  It  is  certain  they  were 
guilty,  and  grossly  guilty  ;  for  God  has  asserted 
it  in  strong  and  emphatic  terms.  They  may 
have  had  more  traditionary  knowledge  than  we 
are  aware  cf.     Judah,  who  lived  before  the  time 

7 


70  LEVITICAL    LAW 

of  Moses,  seems  to  have  been  acquainted  with 
the  obligation  of  a  brother  raising  up  seed  to 
his  brother,  by  marrying  his  widow,  (Gen. 
38:  6-11,)  and  with  the  punishment  to  be 
inflicted  on  whoredom.  (Gen.  28:  24-26.) 
Some  of  the  sins  of  the  Canaanites  may  have  been 
sins  of  ignorance,  while  others  were  wilful  vio- 
laticns  of  known  duty. 

But  the  Puritan  insists  that  this  law  is  not 
permanent;  and  to  establish  his  position  he 
argues,  on  two  grounds,  that  this  law  belongs 
to  the  civil  or  judicial  code,  and  that  it  has  been 
repealed.  The  whole  of  his  argument  is  based 
on  a  petilio  principii ;  it  is  a  mere  begging  of 
the  question  in  debate.  We  contend,  and  de- 
sign to  prove  it,  that  this  law  does  not  belong  to 
the  civil  or  judicial  code.  He  affirms  it  does; 
and,  without  offering  any  proof,  assumes  it  as 
true,  and  makes  this  assumption  the  basis  of  his 
whole  argument :  "  The  statutes  in  question  (p. 
4,  the  2d  paragraph)  belong  to  the  civil  or  ju- 
dicial law  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth."  Let 
us  allow  his  assumption  for  the  present,  and 
test  the  correctness  of  his  reasoning. 

Having  admitted  that  some  principles  of  this 


PERPETUAL.  71 

code  are  still  binding,  while  others  are  not, 
he  observes,  "  What  we  want,  then,  is  some 
plain  criterion,  by  which  we  may  distinguish 
those  which  are  of  permanent  and  universal 
obligation,  from  those  which  are  not."  (P.  4, 
third  parag.)  Distrusting  himself  in  this  deli- 
cate matter,  the  Puritan  determined  to  avail 
himself  of  the  guidance  and  aid  of  that  justly 
celebrated  theologian,  F.  Turrettin.  Had  he 
faithfully  followed  his  own  chosen  guide,  and 
correctly  applied  the  criterion  proposed  by  him, 
for  discovering  what  principles  are  of  permanent 
obligation,  and  what  are  not,  in  the  civil  code  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  he  would  have  arrived  at  a 
different  conclusion.     But  he  has  failed  to  do  so. 

To  illustrate  this,  we  make  the  following  re- 
marks : 

1.  Turrettin  does  not  place  these  statutes  in 
the  municipal  code  of  the  Hebrew  common- 
wealth. Incest  he  would  define  to  be  a  viola- 
tion of  God's  moral  law.  He  justly  enumerates 
it  among  the  sins  against  the  seventh  command- 
ment in  the  Decalogue.*     Now,  let  it  be  recol- 

*  Tur.  vol.  ii.  p.  133. 


72  LEVIT1CAL    LAW 

lected  that  the  Puritan,  speaking  of  these  stat- 
utes, says,  (p.  11,)  "We  undertand  them  to 
forbid  single  acts  of  an  incestuous  character." 

2.  The  Puritan  does  not  apply  the  first  cri- 
terion, as  his  guide  would  have  applied  it ;  for, 
in  seeking  for  something  among  the  Gentiles  to 
meet  its  requirements,  he  supposes  he  must  find 
some  law  on  the  subject.  "And  here,  if  any 
where  in  the  Gentile  world,"  he  says,  (p.  4,  last 
paragraph  but  one,)  "  we  should  expect  to  find 
some  traces  of  natural  law  touching  the  mar- 
riage institution.  Bat  Rome,  in  the  purest 
periods  of  her  history,  had  no  law  forbidding  the 
marriages  in  question."  Turrettin,  in  inquir- 
ing whether  any  law  was  founded  in  nature, 
would  not  search  only  for  some  written  law 
amonp-  the  nations,  but  would  also  examine  the 
writings  of  moralists  and  philosophers  to  find 
out  their  sentiments,  and  discover  the  dictates 
of  natural  conscience.* 

There  he  gives  pertinent  quotations  from 
Cicero  on  the  subject.  There  he  says,  that  the 
impious  laws  of  some  heathen  nations  in  oppo- 

*  Tur.  vol.  ii.  p.  67. 


PERPETUAL.  73 

sition  to  natural  law,  such  as  sanctioned  idola- 
try and  human  sacrifices,  and  permitted  theft, 
rapine,  homicide,  incest,  &/C,  did  not  prove  that 
no  light  of  reason  had  been  granted  by  nature 
to  men,  as  Selden  improperly  concludes ;  but 
only  that  idle,  wicked  men,  by  abusing  their 
light,  struggling  against  it,  and  endeavoring, 
as  far  as  they  were  able,  to  extinguish  it,  had 
been  abandoned  to  a  reprobate  sense. 

3.  The  Puritan's  translation   of  Turrettin's 
first  criterion  is  not   correct.     He  has  left  out 

a  material  word  ;  for  the  original  is  not,  "fol- 
lowing the  light  of  reason,"  but  the  light  of 
right  reason.* 

4.  The  search  of  our  brother  to  find  some- 
thing among  the  laws  of  Gentile  nations  "  touch- 
ing the  marriage  institution,"  has  been  very  de- 
fective, as  will  appear  from  the  following  quota- 
tions : 

"  Prohibitions  similar  to  the  canonical  dis- 
abilities of  the  English  ecclesiastical  law,"  says 
Chancellor  Kent,  "  were  contained  in  the  Jew- 
ish laws,  from  which  the  canon  law  was,  in  this 

*  Tur.  vol.  ii.  p.  183. 

7# 


74  LEVITICAL    LAW 

respect,  deduced ;  and  they  existed  in  the  laws 
and  usages  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  subject 
to  considerable  alternations  of  opinions,  and 
with  various  modifications  and  extent.  These 
regulations,  as  far  at  least  as  they  prohibit  mar- 
riages among  near  relations,  by  blood  or  mar- 
riage, (for  the  canon  and  common  laws  made 
no  distinction  on  this  point,  between  connexions 
by  consanguinity  and  affinity,)  are  evidently 
founded  in  the  law  of  nature  ;  and  incestu- 
ous marriages  have  generally  (but  with  some 
strange  exceptions  at  Athens)  been  regarded 
with  abhorrence  by  the  soundest  writers  and 
most  polished  states  of  antiquity.  Under  the 
influence  of  Christianity ,  a  purer  taste  and 
stricter  doctrine  have  been  inculcated ;  and  an 
incestuous  connexion  between  an  uncle  and 
niece,  has  been  recently  adjudged,  by  a  great 
master  of  public  and  municipal  law,  to  be  a 
nuisance  extremely  offensive  to  the  laws  and 
manners  of  society,  and  tending  to  endless  con- 
fusion, and  the  pollution  of  the  sanctity  of  pri- 
vate life."* 

*  See  Kent's  Com.,  vol.  ii.  p.  82.  See  also  his  author- 
ities, Seldens  Uxor.  Ebr.  &c. 


PERPETUAL.  75 

The  celebrated  Baron  Puffendorf,  in  his 
work  on  the  law  of  nature  and  nations,  has 
treated  the  subject  of  marriage  with  great  ability. 
From  that  work  we  give  the  following  quota- 
tions :  "  Among  the  old  Peruvians  the  Yncas 
alone  were  permitted  to  marry  their  sisters,  and 
all  other  men  forbidden  to  take  the  same  liberty. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Romans  abhorred  this 
practice  as  most  odious  and  unnatural.  Plu- 
tarch, giving  the  reason  why  the  women,  in  that 
nation,  saluted  their  relations  with  a  kiss,  hath 
left  this  remark  :  When  the  laws  had  prohibited 
the  marriage  of  near  relations,  they  yet  allowed 
them  to  proceed  to  this  innocent  expression  of 
love;  and  this  became  a  mutual  pledge  and 
mark  of  their  alliance.  For,  in  ancient  times, 
the  Romans  abstained  from  wedding  their  kins- 
women in  any  degree  of  blood,  as  they  at  pre- 
sent forbear  their  aunts  and  their  sisters.  It 
was  late  before  the  marriage  of  cousin-germans 
was  dispensed  with."*  Let  the  reader  com- 
pare this  testimony  of  Plutarch  with  the  quo- 
tation given  above  from  the  Puritan  in  regard 

*  PufFendorff,  p.  594. 


76  LEVITICAL    LAW 

to  "  Rome  in  the  purest  periods  of  her  his- 
tory." 

In  the  same  paragraph  (p.  4)  the  Puritan 
says,  "  The  Egyptians,  Persians,  Macedonians, 
and  Athenians  allowed  the  marriage  of  own 
sisters,  and  would  not,  of  course,  scruple  such 
alliances"  Let  this  be  compared  with  what 
Pufendorf  has  written  on  the  page  noted  above  : 
"  The  Athenians,  by  the  constitution  of  So- 
lon, might  marry  their  sisters  by  the  father's 
side,  and  not  by  the  mother's"  From  the  ora- 
tion of  Andocides  against  Alcibiades,  he  quotes 
these  words  :  "  Reflect,"  says  he,  "  with  what 
bravery  and  what  wisdom  they  proceeded,  when 
they  sent  so  great  a  man  as  Cimon  into  banish- 
ment for  violating  the  laws  in  taking  his  own 
sister  to  bed." 

Others  of  the  ancients  declared  an  absolute 
dislike  of  this  freedom.  It  is  one  of  Phocyli- 
des's  precepts, 

"  Nor  climb  thy  sister's  interdicted  bed" 

And  indeed  that  these  matches  were  very  un- 
usual through  all  Greece,  may  be  gathered  from 
Hermione's  speech  in  Euripides,  where  she  thus 
upbraids  Andromache  : 


PERPETUAL.  77 

u  Thus  the  barbarians  with  incestuous  love, 
Fathers  their  daughters,  sons  their  mothers  wed, 
Brothers  their  sisters;  and  no  laic  restrains 
Their  sinful  passion." 

Or  if  they  were  once  permitted  in  Greece, 
it  is  certain  they  grew  entirely  out  of  use  with 
posterity,  as  that  passage  of  Sextus  Empiricus 
sufficiently  proves  :  "  The  Egyptians  contracted 
marriage  with  their  sisters,  which,  amongst  us, 
is  disallowed  by  law."  The  same  author  says, 
in  another  place,  "  In  our  country  we  esteem  it 
contrary  to  all  right  and  decency  to  make  a 
wife  of  a  mother  or  of  a  sister."  Yet  he 
chargeth  both  those  practices  on  the  Persians ; 
as  do  also  Strabo,  Laertius,  Curtius,  and  Lu- 
cian.  Though  the  answer  given  by  the  Judges 
to  Cambyses  in  Herodotus,  plainly  shows  that 
the  wise  men,  even  in  the  Persian  nation,  were 
of  a  very  different  opinion. 

Pufendorf,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state,  re- 
fers to  all  his  authorities,  so  that  his  readers 
can  easily  examine  for  themselves. 

We  have  seen,  that,  among  other  prohibitions 
of  the  ancient  Romans,  was  the  marriage  of  an 
aunt ;  and  that,  by  prohibiting  that  ofcousin-ger- 
mansi  they  went  even  beyond  the  Levitical  law. 


78  LEVITICAL    LAW 

Selden  confirms  what  Puffendorf  states  :  "  Sed 
in  Roma  veteri  etiam  Patruelium,  Amitinorum, 
seu  consobrinorum  nuptiae  nunc  vetita  mere, 
nunc  permissae."* 

Grotius,  in  p.  200,  (translation,)  quotes  Ta- 
citus:  "  To  marry  wives  is  to  us  entirely  new, 
but  very  common  with  other  people ;  nor  is  it 
by  any  law  prohibited,  says  Tacitus."  Tac.  lib. 
xii.  chap.  6. 

In  view  of  these  quotations,  what  are  we  to 
think  of  the  Puritan's  round  and  bold  asser- 
tion :  "  We  look  in  vain  through  the  Gentile 
world,  for  any  traces  of  evidence  that  this  law 
is  one  of  those  principles  of  general  equity, 
which  is  taught  by  the  light  of  nature.  So  the 
first  criterion  fails  of  bringing  its  obligation  on 
us."  (P.  4.)  Had  he  extended  his  inquiries 
and  searched  more  diligently,  he  might  have 
found  the  above  "  traces  of  evidence,"  and  many 
more  "  traces  of  natural  law,  touching  the  mar- 
riage  institution."  His  look  into  the  Gentile 
world  was  manifestly  limited  and  confined.  If 
he  will  examine  Grotius,  and  Selden,  and  Puf- 
fendorf',  &,c,  he  will  be  convinced  of  his  error 

*  De  Jure  Nat.  et  Gent.  lib.  v.  chap.  11. 


PERPETUAL.  79 


CHAPTER    V. 

The  same   subject    continued -First    criterion— Third    criterion- 
Second  criterion-. 

5.  The  first  criterion,  reasoning  on  the  Pu- 
ritan's own  principles,  does  not  fail.  It  stands 
firm.  Indeed  he  virtually  yields  the  point  in 
debate,  where  he  says,  (p  6,)  "  The  voice  of 
nature  teaches  that  such  marriages  are  now  to 
be  reprobated — that  there  are  reasons  why  they 
should  be  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  on 
grounds  of  high  expediency."  Again,  on  the 
same  page,  he  says,  "  We,  having  the  light  of 
inspiration  to  read  ihe  book  of  nature  with,  find 
no  difficulty  in  reading  out  of  the  book  of  nature 
a  law  against  such  marriages." 

When,  we  ask,  was  this  law  enacted?  when 
inscribed  in  the  book  of  nature  ?  The  light  of 
inspiration  was  imparted  as  soon  as  Moses  be- 
gan to  write  the  Levitical  law,  and  before  his 


80  LEVITICAL    LAW 

time.  But  the  Puritan  perhaps  will  say,  he 
means  the  light  which  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  have  shed  upon  the  book  of  nature. 
Well,  they  were  bestowed  on  the  Church  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era ;  and  could  not 
primitive  Christians  use  their  light  in  reading 
the  book  of  nature,  and  read  out  of  it  the  law 
against  these  marriages?  But  popery  was  then 
developing  itself,  and  darkening  the  pages  of 
inspiration  and  of  nature.  If  so,  we  ask  again, 
when  was  this  law  enacted  and  written  in  the 
book  of  nature?  Was  it  since  the  Protestant 
Church  arose  ?  But  why  these  questions  ?  If 
this  law  exists  now,  it  existed  ever  since  men 
had  multiplied  on  the  earth,  and  part  of  it  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world.  If  men  had  not 
eyes  to  read  it  in  the  book  of  nature,  still  it  was 
written  there;  and  if  they  were  ignorant  of  the 
law  of  nature,  still  that  law  of  nature  had  exist, 
ence.  It  was  enacted  by  the  God  of  nature  for 
the  government  of  his  rational  creatures.  Were 
all  men  blind,  that  calamity  would  not  extin- 
guish the  sun's  rays  of  light.  He  would  go 
forth  still,  like  a  bridegroom  from  his  chamber, 
and  shine  in  all  his  brightness  in  the  heavens. 


PERPETUAL.  &| 

6.  This  law,  then,  which  the  Puritan  reads 
out  of  the  book  of  nature,  must,  on  his  owr* 
admission,  be  a  natural  law,  obligatory  on  all 
mankind,  whether  they  know  it  or  not.  "  The 
voice  of  nature,"  he  says,  "  teaches  that  such 
marriages  are  now  to  be  reprobated."  Yes, 
and  we  have  seen  that  the  voice  of  nature  was 
heard  in  ancient  times,  and  that  they  were  rep- 
robated not  only  by  the  writings  of  their  philoso- 
phers, but  by  the  laws  of  nations, 

But  the  Puritan  will  perhaps  say,  I  was 
speaking  of  "  the  marriage  of  one's  own  sister." 
Be  it  so ;  and  does  not  "  the  voice  of  nature 
teach "  that  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his 
mother,  or  with  his  aunt,  or  with  his  son's 
daughter,  or  with  his  daughter's  daughter,  is 
now  to  be  reprobated  ;  and  that  there  are  rea- 
sons why  such  marriages  should  be  forbidden  by 
the  laws  of  the  land,  "  on  grounds  of  high  expe- 
diency ?"  Assisted  by  "the  light  of  inspira- 
tion," can  you  find  any  difficulty  in  reading  out 
of  the  book  of  nature  a  law  against  such  mar- 
riages? Are  not  these  marriages  part  of  one 
law,  recorded  in  Leviticus  18  :  vs.  6-17?  and 

8 


82  LEVITICAL    LAW 

if  part  of  this  law  is  natural,  is  not  the  whole 
law,  on  the  same  subject,  natural  ? 

7.  "  The  third  criterion,  to  wit,  the  repetition 
and  renewal  of  the  law,"  says  our  brother,  (p. 
4,  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  paragraph,)  "  in 
the  New  Testament,  equally  fails.  It  is  not 
pretended  that  the  New  Testament  is  any  thing 
more  than  silent  on  the  subject."  Indeed !  The 
New  Testament  silent  on  such  breaches  of  the 
law  of  nature  designed  to  protect  domestic  purity 
and  public  morals  !  What  indignant  language 
does  Paul  use,  in  1  Cor.  5  : 1-5,  in  relation  to  the 
abominable  fornication  of  the  Corinthian,  who 
had  taken  his  father's  wife  to  live  with  her  in 
incestuous  intercourse  !  What  was  the  decree 
of  the  Assembly  at  Jerusalem  for  the  direction 
of  Gentile  churches  in  regard  to  fornication  1 
See  Acts  15:  28,  29.  What  says  Paul,  in  1 
Cor.  6:9,  10?  what  denunciation  does  he  utter 
against  fornicators  and  adulterers? 

But  it  may  be  objected,  these  texts  do  not 
treat  of  marriage.  Admitted  ;  but  they  condemn 
the  very  sins  prohibited  by  the  Levitical  code  ; 
they  condemn  all  acts  of  uncleanness,  the  very 


PERPETUAL.  83 

sins  that  violate  that  natural  law,  which  the  Puri- 
tan reads  out  of  the  book  of  nature,  and  which 
no  ceremony  of  marriage  can  cleanse  from  guilt 
or  render  lawful. 

8.  If  we  reason  on  the  ground,  subsequently 
assumed,  in  chap,  iii.,  that  these  Levitical  stat- 
utes do  not  relate  to  marriage,  but  only  forbid 
"single  acts  of  an  incest  uous  character,"  (p.  11, 
fourth  paragraph,)  we  must  come  to  the  same 
result.  "  Having  the  light  of  inspiration  to 
read  the  book  of  nature  with,"  can  we  find  any 
"  difficulty  in  reading  out  of  the  book  of  nature 
a  law  against "  the  lewd,  incestuous  sin  of  defiling 
a  father's  bed,  or  having  criminal  intercourse  with 
a  sister,  or  an  aunt,  or  a  son's  daughter,  or  a 
daughter's  daughter,  or  a  brother's  wife  ?  Does 
not  the  voice  of  nature  reprobate  such  acts  of 
uncleanness?  And  is  not  the  law  which  nature 
has  enacted  ao-ainst  such  abominable  crimes,  a 

NATURAL  law  1 

9.  Nor  does  the  second  criterion  fail.  "  Those 
laws  which  are  seen  to  conform  to  the  precepts 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  serve  to  explain  and  con- 
firm it." 

Here  we  are  constrained  to  notice  another  in- 


84  LEVITICAL    LAW 

stance  in  which  the  Puritan  does  not  follow  his 
chosen  guide ;  for  he  has  left  out  an  important 
part  of  Turrettin's  criterion ;  which  shows  his 
meaning  in  the  text.  Immediately  after  the 
above  translation  must  be  added  these  words  : 
"  Which  is  easily  discovered,  if  either  the  object, 
or  the  matter  of  the  laws,  or  the  causes  of  enact- 
ing them,  be  regarded."  This  seems  to  us  like 
the  offering  of  a  lamp  to  throw  light  upon  our 
path  ;  and  not  to  attend  to  this  part  of  the  crite- 
rion, looks  like  refusing  the  proffered  aid  of  our 
guide. 

But  to  apply  the  test  to  the  case  before  us 
Call  the  Levitical  statutes  what  you  please,  natu- 
ral, moral,  or  civil,  we  ask,  What  is  their  ob- 
ject? Domestic  purity  and  sound  morals  in  the 
community.  And  is  not  this  the  object  of  the 
seventh  commandment  in  the  Decalogue  ?  What 
is  the  matter  of  these  statutes  ?  They  prohibit 
all  uncleanness,  all  incestuous  acts,  all  illicit 
intercourse  between  near  relations ;  and  does 
not  the  seventh  commandment  prohibit  the  same  ? 
What  were  the  causes  or  reason  of  the  enact- 
ment of  these  statutes  ?  To  furnish  the  Israel- 
ites with  a  clear  knowledge  of  the  Divine  will, 


PERPETUAL.  85 

and  to  guard  them  against  the  temptations  to 
which  they  were  exposed,  not  only  "during 
their  sojourn  in  the  desert,"  but  when  they  were 
settled  in  the  promised  land.  And  was  not  the 
seventh  commandment  published  for  the  same 
reason  ? 

It  appears  then  to  us,  that  these  statutes,  this 
law  of  Leviticus,  is  implied  in  the  Decalogue; 
and  that  it  confirms  the  same  prohibitions  which 
the  seventh  commandment,  when  rightly  under- 
stood, contains.  How  comprehensive  it  is,  was 
taught  by  our  great  and  supreme  Lawgiver, 
when  he  uttered  these  words:  "  Ye  have  heard 
that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt 
not  commit  adultery  :  but  I  say  unto  you,  That 
whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her, 
hath  committed  adultery  already  with  her  in  his 
heart."     Matt.  5  :  27,  28. 

But,  says  the  Puritan,  "  There  is  not  there  " 
(in  the  Decalogue)  "  the  least  intimation  of  any 
defined  boundaries  to  the  liberty  of  marriage." 
(Page  5,  first  line.)  We  reply  :  If  God  has,  in 
these  Levitical  statutes,  defined  these  bounda- 
ries, as  we  hope  hereafter  to  prove,  then  it  will 
follow,  that,  to  contract   such  prohibited  mar- 

8* 


86  LEVITICAL    LAW 

riages,  is  to  be  guilty  of  uncleanness,  of  inces- 
tuous intercourse,  which  can  never  be  chano-ed 
in  their  character  by  any  ceremony  of  marriage- 
Marriage,  in  whatever  way  contracted,  cannot 
hide  their  vileness,  nor  render  such  illicit  com- 
merce between  the  sexes  as  comes  within  the 
limits  set  to  our  liberty,  honorable.  It  is  vile, 
odious  in  the  sight  of  God,  though  covered  by 
the  mantle  of  marriage.  It  is  like  whited  sepul- 
chres, "  beautiful  outward,  but  within  full  of 
dead  men's  bones,  and  of  all  uncleanness." 
Such  lewd  acts,  such  vile,  illicit  intercourse, 
is  certainly  prohibited  by  the  Decalogue. 

"We  close  this  chapter  by  adverting  again  to 
a  passage  before  quoted.  If  we  understand  his 
meaning,  he  deems  it  necessary,  to  sustain  the 
perpetuity  of  the  prohibition  against  the  mar- 
riage of  a  deceased  wife's  sister,  that  we  should 
find  a  similar  law  among  heathen  nations. 

Was  this  a  correct  way  of  treating  this  im- 
portant subject?  When  we  have  an  inspired 
law,  consisting  of  sundry  statutes  of  the  same 
nature,  are  we  to  try  each  particular  part  of  this 
Divine  law,  by  the  laws  of  heathen  nations  j 
and,  if  we  are  unable  to  find  a  particular  part 


PERPETUAL. 


87 


sustained  by  a  similar  statute  in  their  codes  on 
the  general  subject,  are  we  to  expunge  it  from 
the  inspired  code  ?  Shall  we  say,  This  statute, 
enacted  by  infinite  wisdom,  which  perfectly 
knows  the  nature  of  man,  and  all  his  relations, 
and  how  to  promote  the  purity  of  domestic  life, 
as  well  as  good  morals  in  the  community,  can- 
not bind  us,  because  it  has  not  received  the 
sanction  of  heathen  legislators,  who  had  no  bet- 
ter  guide  than  natural  reason,  unaided  by  divine 
revelation,  and  darkened  and  misled  by  corrupt 
and  sensual  passions?  Are  the  laws  of  men  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  the  laws  of  God?  Were  all 
the  precepts  in  the  Decalogue  to  be  tried  in  this 
way,  how  many  would  be  expunged?  Would 
not  the  Puritan  "  look  in  vain  through  the  Gen- 
tile world,"  for  a  law  to  sanction  the  fourth 
commandment,  a  law  requiring  the  sanctification 
of  the  Sabbath?  Would  he  not  look  in  vain  for 
a  law  to  sustain  the  second  commandment,  which 
prohibits  the  worship  of  God  by  images?  Would 
he  not  look  in  vain  through  the  whole  heathen 
world  for  a  law  asserting  the  Unity  of  God,  and 
forbidding  men  to  worship  more  gods  than  the 
one  only  living  and  true  God?     In  the  absence 


88  LEVITICAL    LAW 

of  such  laws,  have  we  not  sufficient  evidence  to 
convince  us,  that  the  substance  of  the  Decalogue 
was  written  on  the  hearts  of  Pagan  nations,  and 
that  their  wise  men  knew  God,  but  not  wishing 
"to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave 
them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those 
things  which  are  not  convenient?" 

And  in  the  absence  of  a  law  prohibiting  a 
man  marrying  a  deceased  wife's  sister,  is  not  the 
existence  of  laws  and  the  prevalence  of  customs, 
which  have  the  force  of  laws,  restraining  the 
liberty  of  marriage  within  particular  degrees, 
and  going  beyond  the  Divine  law,  sufficient  to 
convince  us,  that  the  light  of  nature  did  teach 
heathen  nations  to  impose  such  restrictions  on 
marriage,  for  the  preservation  of  purity  in  do- 
mestic, and  of  good  morals  in  civil,  life  ?  Now, 
if  our  brother  had  treated  the  subject  in  this 
reasonable  way,  and  extended  his  search,  he 
would  have  found,  as  we  have  already  shown, 
(pp.  72-79,)  what  were  the  laws  and  sentiments 
of  the  wise  among  heathen  nations  of  antiquity, 
and  would  have  come  to  a  very  different  conclu- 
sion. In  ascertaining  the  limits  of  duty  on  any 
particular  subject  of  moral  or  natural  obligation, 


PERPETUAL.  89 

we  are  not  to  be  guided  by  the  imperfect,  light 
of  unassisted  reason,  but  by  the  light  of  reason, 
aided  by  the  light  of  Divine  inspiration.  Our 
brother,  the  Puritan,  has  reversed  the  rule. 


r 


90  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 


CHAPTER    VI. 


The  Levirical  Statutes  belong  not  to  the  Civil  but  to  tbe  Ecclesi- 
asical  1. aw— Unity  of  the  Church— The  Law  not  Repealed — 
Jewish  Code. 


The  Hebrews  were  both  a  Church  and  a 
Nation.  Jehovah  sustained  to  them  a  twofold 
relation.  He  was  the  nation's  kino*,  and  the 
church's  covenant  God.  In  legislating  for  this 
peculiar  people,  He  acted  in  correspondence  with 
this  twofold  relation.  As  their  king,  he  gave 
laws  to  the  nation  ;  and  as  their  covenant  God, 
He  gave  laws  to  His  Church. 

Now,  the  question  in  reference  to  the  law 
under  consideration  is,  which  character  did 
Jehovah  assume,  and  in  which  aspect  did  He 
regard  the  Hebrews  when  it  was  published  1 
Did  He  enact  it  as  their  kincr  or  as  their  cove- 
nant  God  ?  Was  it  designed  to  promote  the 
peace   and   order  of  the  commonwealth,  or  to 


NOT    A    CIVIL    LAW.  91 

preserve  the  purity  of  the  Church  ;  arid  thus,  by 
sanctifying  His  people,  prepare  them  both  for 
their  duties  on  earth  and  for  their  enjoyments 
in  heaven  ? 

Look  at  the  law.  What  is  its  nature  ?  We 
have  seen,  that,  whether  it  be  regarded  as  pre- 
scribing degrees  of  marriage,  or  as  forbidding 
"  single  acts  of  an  incestuous  character,"  it  is  a 
moral  law,  demanding  a  chaste  and  holy  conduct. 

The  Puritan,  in  his  first  chapter,  assumes, 
without  offering  any  proof  in  support  of  his 
assumption,  that  "  the  statutes  in  question  belono- 
to  the  civil  or  judicial  law  of  the  Hebrew  Com- 
monwealth ;"  and  then,  on  the  supposition  of 
their  referring  to  marriage,  (which  we  hope  in 
a  subsequent  place  to  prove  to  be  a  fact,)  he 
reasons  and  endeavours  to  evince  that  they  do 
not  pertain  to  us.  In  this  he  has  failed.  It  has, 
we  think,  been  shown  that  the  criterion  he 
applies  to  them,  considered  as  a  civil  law,  instead 
of  proving  what  he  aims  at,  proves  the  contrary, 
that  they  do,  on  his  own  admissions,  pertain  to 
us,  and  are  permanently  binding. 

Marriage  is  regarded  by  many  as  a  mere  civil 
contract.  From  its  nature  it  does,  indeed,  claim 


92  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

the  supervision  of  municipal  authority,  to  protect 
the  rights,  and  to  enforce  the  duties,  growing 
out  of  this  peculiar  relation.  But  it  is  much 
more  than  a  civil,  contract.  It  lies  at  the  very 
foundation  of  society  :  it  is  the  parent  of  the 
state.  It  received  its  existence  from  the  Creator ; 
it  is  his  institution,  and  designed  by  Him  for  the 
propagation,  preservation,  and  happiness  of  our 
race.  He  originally  instituted  marriage  to  be 
between  one  man  and  one  woman,  on  purpose, 
the  prophet  tells  us,  "  that  He  might  seek  a  godly 
seed."  (Mai.  2  :  15.)  It  was  not  the  mere 
temporal  advantage  of  our  race  He  had  in  view. 
He  looked  beyond  mere  earthly  benefits ;  He 
regarded  our  holiness  and  meetness  for  a  heavenly 
state  of  enjoyment.  And  will  He  net  protect 
this  institution  against  abuse  1  Surely  He  will. 
The  seventh  commandment  in  the  Decalogue  is 
one  defence,  and  these  Levitical  statutes  we 
believe  to  be  another.  Such  they  evidently  are, 
even  on  the  supposition  that  they  refer  to  "  single 
acts  of  an  incestuous  character ;"  for  this  view 
of  their  design  brings  them,  as  observed  before, 
within  the  purview  of  the  seventh  commandment. 
In  truth,  they  constitute  a  law  given  to  the 


AN    ECCLESIASTICAL    LAW.  93 

Church,  to  preserve  the  purity  of  all  her  mem- 
bers. They  were  made,  by  the  express  words  of 
the  enactment,  binding  not  only  on  native  mem- 
bers, but  on  all  foreigners  who  might  become 
adopted  members  of  the  Church.  See  Lev. 
18  :  26. 

Our  brethren  who  range  these  statutes  under 
the  civil  code,  are  misled  by  confounding  the 
eighteenth  with  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Leviticus, 
and  by  not  distinguishing  between  the  law  itself 
and  its  penalties.  The  eighteenth  chapter  is 
entirely  distinct  from  the  seventeenth,  which 
goes  before  it,  and  the  nineteenth  and  the  twen- 
tieth, that  follow  it :  for  each  of  these  chapters 
begins  with  these  words,  "  And  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses,  saying,"  to  show  that  each  chapter 
contains  a  distinct  communication  to  Moses  to 
be  delivered  to  the  children  of  Israel.  The 
eighteenth  contains  nothing  of  a  ceremonial 
nature.  All  is  moral,  not  excepting  the  19th 
verse.     See  chap.  20  :  18. 

The  statutes  appear,  in  the  eighteenth  chapter, 
as  the  ecclesiastical  law,  enforced  by  an  appro- 
priate spiritual  penalty ;  and,  in  the  twentieth 
chapter,  some  of  the  statutes  are  referred  to,  and 

9 


94  levitical  law 

enforced  by  the  penalty  of  death  to  be  inflicted 
by  the  civil  magistrate.  This  penalty  belongs  to 
the  civil  code  ;  but  the  law  itself  belongs  to  the 
ecclesiastical  code. 

The  Puritan  mistakes  the  nature  of  the 
threatening  in  Lev.  18  :  29 ;  he  takes  it  to  be 
capital  punishment — (p.  20,  fifth  par.)  Gesenius 
confirms  him  in  his  opinion.  Both  are,  in  our 
judgment,  in  error.  It  is  the  same  penalty  that 
enforces  compliance  with  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
appointed  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant  made  with  the 
father  of  the  faithful.  "  My  covenant  shall  be 
in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant.  And 
the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his 
foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people ;  he  hath  broken  my 
covenant."  (Gen.  17  :  13,  14.)  This  did  not 
mean  capital  punishment,  inflicted  by  the  magis- 
trate's hand,  but  exclusion  from  the  Church,  and 
deprivation  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.  The 
text,  Exod.  31  :  14,  speaks  of  two  distinct  kinds 
of  punishment.  The  latter  does  not,  as  the 
Puritan  supposes,  define  the  former. 

Besides,  let  it  be  remembered,  the  punishment 
does  not  always  determine  the  nature  of  the  law. 


NOT    REPEALED.  95 

A  judicial  sentence,  to  be  executed  by  the  civil 
magistrate,  is  often  annexed  to  a  law  that  is 
natural  and  moral.  Idolatry,  the  breach  of  the 
Sabbath,  adultery,  were  all  made  capital  offences; 
the  offender  was  to  be  punished  with  death  by 
the  magistrate.  If,  therefore,  any  one  will  insist 
that  some  of  these  Levitical  statutes  belonged  to 
the  civil  code,  because  offences  against  them 
were  punishable  with  death,  he  must,  to  be  con- 
sistent, carry  o^it  his  argument  and  prove,  for  the 
same  reason,  that  the  Jirst,  the  third,  the  fourth, 
the  fifth,  the  seventh  precept,  in  the  Decalogue, 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  civil  or  judicial  code  ; 
for  the  violation  of  these  was  made  punishable 
with  death  by  the  civil  magistrate.  See  Deut. 
13:  6-11,  17:2-7.  Lev.  24  :  16.  Exod.  35  :  2. 
Lev.  20  :  9,  10. 

This  Levitical  law  has  not  been  repealed.  It 
was  given  to  the  Hebrew  Church,  and  it  is  now 
the  law  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Church  of  God  is  one  society  in  every 
age.  It  has  existed  fn  different  periods  of  time, 
and  under  different  dispensations.  Still,  how- 
ever, it  is  one  and  the  same  society,  which 
Jehovah  has  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and  sepa- 
rated from  the  rest  of  mankind,  to  the  praise  of 


96  LEVITICAL    LAW 

the  glory  of  his  rich  and  sovereign  grace.  The 
Jewish  Church  and  the  Christian  Church  were, 
in  many  particulars,  as  parts  of  the  same  whole, 
different  from  each  other  :  but  they  were,  in  all 
essential  points,  one  and  the  same  society ;  having 
the  same  glorious  Head,  governed  by  the  same 
laws,  favored  with  the  same  gospel,  animated  by 
the  same  Holy  Spirit,  cheered  by  the  same 
blessed  hope,  and  destined  to  the  same  heavenly 
happiness  and  eternal  glory. 

The  Christian  Church  flourishes  under  the 
same  gracious  covenant  by  which  the  Jewish 
Church  was  formed.  In  that  covenant,  Abraham 
was  constituted  the  father  of  the  faithful ;  and 
circumcision,  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  was 
appointed  to  assure  him  that  he  was  justified  by 
"  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  and  that  believers, 
whether  his  natural  descendants,  or  his  adopted 
seed,  would  be  justified  by  the  same  glorious 
righteousness.  Rom.  4  :  9-17.  Hence  believers 
are  "  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise."  Gal.  3 :  29.  The  unity  of  the  Church 
Paul  illustrates,  by  comparing  it  to  a  tree,  of 
which  the  Jews  were  the  natural  branches,  but 
broken  off  on  account  of  their  unbelief;  and  into 
which  Gentile  believers,  taken  from  a  wild  olive 


NOT    REPEALED.  97 

tree,  were  grafted.  When  the  Jews  shall  be 
converted  and  believe  in  Christ,  they  will,  as 
"  natural  branches,  be  grafted  into  their  own 
olive  tree."  Rom.  11:  17-24.  They  will  become 
members  of  the  same  church,  adorned  with 
greater  light  and  enriched  with  greater  privi- 
leges, from  which,  for  the  sin  of  unbelief,  they 
have  been  expelled. 

Now,  this  one  Church  of  God  is  governed  by 
all  the  laws  that  were  ever  given  to  it,  excepting 
those  which  have  been  abolished  by  the  Supreme 
authority  that  enacted  them.  It  will  not  answer 
to  assert,  This  and  that  law  have  been  repealed; 
or,  by  a  general  remark,  to  sweep  away  a  whole 
code  of  laws.  It  must  be  shown,  from  Scripture 
testimony,  what  laws  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  has  abolished. 

We  admit  the  ceremonial  law  of  Moses  to  have 
been  annulled  ;  because  prophetic  intimation  had 
been  given  that  its  authority  would  cease,  and 
because  the  inspired  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  has  asserted  and  proved  the  fact.  We 
admit,  also,  that  what  belonged  purely  to  the 
Jewish  civil  or  judicial  code,  does  not  bind 
Christians,  unless  it  have  been  adopted  as  part 
9* 


98  LEVITICAL    LAW 

of  the  municipal  code  of  the  country  or  state  in 
which  they  live.  But  these  statutes  of  which 
we  speak  are  binding  on  all  Christians,  whether 
adopted  or  not  as  the  municipal  law  of  the  land 
in  which  they  live;  because  they  were  given  to 
the  Church,  and  have  not  been  repealed. 

The  Puritan  thinks  differently.  Let  us  hear 
him.  Page  5,  second  paragraph,  he  speaks  thus  I 
"  As  this  is  an  important  point,  let  us  be  well 
understood.  As  the  Jewish  code,  as  a  code, 
expired  by  its  own  limitations,  at  the  coming  of 
Christ,  none  of  its  precepts  have  any  force, 
derived  from  the  circumstance  that  they  stand  in 
that  code.  The  force  which  any  of  its  precepts 
has,  comes  from  the  inherent  justice  and  adapted- 
ness  seen  to  reside  in  those  precepts." 

Let  us  examine  this  passage.  Jeremy  Taylor, 
whom  the  Puritan  brings  forward  as  advocating 
his  cause,  but  without  sufficient  reason,  would 
condemn  such  language.  He,  speaking  of  the 
marriage  of  a  man  with  his  mother,  in  his  Ductor 
Dubitantium,  (p.  223,)  says,  after  showing  it  to 
be  contrary  to  nature,  "  But  all  this  was  not 
sufficient  to  make  it  to  become  a  natural  law, 
without  the  authority  of  God  intervening.    This 


NOT    REPEALED, 


99 


made  it  to  be  excellently  reasonable  to  be  estab- 
lished into  a  law  ;  and,  therefore,  God  did  so, 
and  declared  it,  and  did  not  trust  man's  reason 
alone  with  the  conduct  of  it ;  but  then  it  became 
an  eternal  law,  when  God  made  it  so." 

What  was  the  Jewish  code  1  What  did  it  com- 
prehend ?  Only  the  ceremonial  law  ?  or  only  the 
civil  law  ?  or  only  the  moral  law  1  An  answer  to 
these  questions  is,  we  think,  given  by  our  brother, 
when  he  says,  (p.  4,)  "  And  here  we  shall  assume 
no  ultra  ground  respecting  our  relations  to  the 
civil  law  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  The 
books  of  Moses  contain,  it  is  well  known,  a  moral 
law,  summed  up  in  the  ten  commandments,  and  a 
ceremonial  law,  which  regulated  the  ceremonies 
and  types  of  the  Hebrew  church,  and  a  civil  or 
judicial  law,  which  preserved  the  peace  of  the 
commonwealth."  Now,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  all  these  laws,  distributed  by  the  Puritan 
into  three  classes,  Jehovah,  our  Supreme  Law- 
giver, gave,  by  his  servant  Moses,  to  his  ancient 
people,  denominated,  at  one  time,  Hebrews,  and 
at  another,  Jews.  All  were  written  by  Moses  in 
his  five  books.  They  constituted  the  Jcioish 
code ;  not  the  moral  law  alone,  nor  the  ceremo- 


100  LEVITICAL    LAW 

nial  law  alone,  nor  the  civil  or  judicial  law  alone ; 
but.  all  combined  together  constituted  that  code, 
of  which  each  was  a  constituent  part. 

Has  this  Jewish  code,  as  a  code,  as  a  whole, 
"  expired,  by  its  own  limitations,  at  the  coming 
of  Christ"  ?  Where  are  those  limitations  marked 
or  recorded  ?  Nowhere.  Or  can  it  be,  with 
propriety,  said,  as  it  is  said  by  the  Puritan,  that 
"  none  of  its  precepts  have  any  force  derived 
from  the  circumstance  that  they  stand  in  that 
code  ?"  The  very  fact  of  their  standing  in  that 
code,  written  under  the  inspiration  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  Most  High,  imparted  to  them  a 
binding  force  over  the  conscience.  To  feel  their 
force,  it  was  not  necessary  for  a  Jew  to  inquire 
in  regard  to  "  the  inherent  justice  and  adapted- 
ness  seen  to  reside  in  those  precepts."  To  an 
intelligent  and  pious  Jew,  it  was  sufficient  to 
find  a  precept  in  the  code  which  God  had  given 
to  His  Church  by  Moses,  to  convince  him  it  was 
obligatory,  and  ought  to  be  obeyed.  He  would, 
indeed,  perceive  a  difference  in  the  precepts  of 
this  Divine  code,  and  know  and  feel  some  to  be 
more  important  than  others  ;  and  that,  when  they 
came  in  conflict,  or,  in  other  words,  when  both 


NOT    REPEALED.  101 

could  not  be  observed  at  the  same  time,  it  wan 
his  duty  to  observe  the  former. 

This  whole  code  was  binding  on  the  Jewish 
Church  till  the  coming  of  Christ ;  and  from  no 
part  of  it  was  the  Christian  Church  released,  till 
the  Head  of  the  Church  was  pleased  to  repeal  a 
part,  and  publish  his  will  accordingly.  So  felt 
the  first  disciples  of  our  Lord,  both  among  the 
Jews  and  among  the  Gentiles.  Even  the  apos- 
tles imagined  themselves  bound  by  the  entire  law 
of  Moses,  till  they  were  taught,  by  the  Spirit, 
that  God  had  released  his  people  from  a  burden 
formerly  imposed  on  them.  See  Acts  x.  xi.  xv. 
But  where  are  we  taught  that  the  Levitical 
statutes  under  consideration  have  been  repeal- 
ed ?  Are  Christians  allowed  to  commit  the  acts 
of  lewdness  which  they  prohibit  ?  Does  not 
God  require  us  to  abstain  from  them,  as  He  did 
formerly  require  the  Jews  to  flee  from  them  ? 

But  to  all  this  the  Puritan  will  perhaps  reply, 
that,  by  "  the  Jewish  code"  he  meant  the  muni- 
cipal code,  and  that  this  has  been  repealed. 
Allow  this  to  be  his  meaning,  and  what  was 
peculiar  to  the  municipal  code  not  binding  on 
Christians,  the  repeal  of  this  Levitical  law  will 


102  LEVITICAL    LAW    NOT    REPEALED. 

not  follow  as  a  legitimate  consequence.  He 
must  first  prove  this  law  to  be  a  purely  municipal 
law.  This  he  has  not  even  attempted.  He 
assumes  it ;  and,  consequently,  his  whole  argu- 
ment rests  on  a  petitio  principii.  It  is  what 
he  charges  on  others,  in  the  paragraph  imme- 
diately preceding  the  one  containing  the  quota- 
tion, on  which  our  animadversions  have  been 
made,  a  mere  begging  of  the  question  in  debate. 
Besides,  we  have,  we  think,  proved  this  Levit- 
ical  law  to  be,  not  municipal  but  ecclesiastical , 
and  permanently  binding  on  the  Church,  in  every 
age ;  and  that,  even  allowing  it  to  be  municipal, 
he  has  failed,  in  the  application  of  his  criteria, 
borrowed  from  Turrettin,  to  show  the  contrary. 


LEVITICAL    STATUTES,    ETC.  103 


CHAPTER    VII. 

The  Levitical  statutes  relate  to  marriage— Opinion  of  Talmudista 
and  Karaites— Judgment  of  the  Primitive  Church — Of  the  Re- 
formed Church — Argument  of  the  Puritan— His  error  shown. 

1.  That  these  statutes  relate  to  marriage,  and 
determine  the  degrees  within  which  it  is  not 
lawful  to  contract  marriage,  has  been,  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  the  judgment  of  the  Church 
of  God  in  every  age. 

In  this  manner,  both  the  Talmudists  and  the 
Karaites  interpreted  the  law.  On  other  points 
of  explanation  they  differed  ;  but  in  this  they 
were  entirely  agreed. 

The  judgment  of  primitive  Christians  coin- 
cided with  that  of  the  Jews. 

And,  at  the  Reformation,  when,  by  the  in 
quiry  of  Henry  VIII.,  this  Levitical  law  came  to 
be  investigated  anew,   by   the   Universities  of 


8  04  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

Europe,  and  by  the  Protestant  Church,  they  all 
arrived  at  the  same  result.  The  Universities, 
without  exception,  regarded  these  statutes  as 
referring  to  marriage,  and  prescribing  the  law- 
ful degrees.  Among  the  Reformers  there  was 
no  difference  of  sentiment.  This  was  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Protestant  Church  of  Europe ;  (see 
pp.  31-34,)  and  it  has  continued  to  be  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church  to  this  day,  As  there  is  no 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  may  rationally 
believe  that  this  has  always  been  the  judgment 
of  the  Church  of  God,  from  the  first  publication 
of  this  law. 

Now,  has  the  Church,  Jewish  and  Christian, 
notwithstanding  the  careful  examination  of  this 
law,  at  different  periods,  by  the  ablest  men,  been 
ignorant  of  its  true  meaning  and  design,  in 
every  age  ?  So  thinks  the  Puritan.  Is  he, 
and  the  few  who  think  with  him,  right,  and  the 
whole  Church  wrong?  It  is  possible,  but  it  is 
highly  improbable. 

2.  Let  us  hear  the  Puritan.  His  first  re- 
liance is  on  the  absence  of  the  word  marriage 
in  this  law,  and  on  the  meaning  of  the  term  or 
phrase,  "  Thou  shall  not  uncover  the  nakedness" 


RELATE  TO  MARRIAGE.  105 

&>c,  so  often  used  in  these  statutes.  "  And  the 
first  position  that  we  shall  take  is,  that  they  do 
not  prohibit  any  marriages.  Marriage  was  a 
familiar  word  in  the  vocabulary  of  Moses;  and 
if  that  were  his  meaning,  it  was  quite  as  perti- 
nent, and  as  delicate  and  euphonic,  and  every 
way  as  suitable,  as  the  term  here  used.  And  as 
he  has  avoided  the  use  of  it,  and  has  not  used 
even  an  accustomed  synonyme  of  it,  it  is  fair  to 
conclude  that  marriage  was  not  his  mean- 
ing." 

'■'  But  our  opponents  say,  that  though  the  term 
does  not  necessarily  import  marriage,  it  imports 
sexual  intercourse  in  general,  and  that  includes 
marriage.  And  that  may  be  true,  unless  it  can 
be  shown  that  the  term  of  its  oxen  force  bears 
the  idea  of  criminal  intercourse.  If  that  can  be 
made  appear,  then,  so  far  from  including,  it  ex- 
cludes marriage.  Besides,  the  term,  uncover 
nakedness,  is  in  this  scries  of  statutes  by  paral- 
lelisms made  equivalent  to  another  term,  in 
which  both  sodomy  and  bestiality  are  forbidden." 
Pp.  10,  11. 

3.  In  our  reply  we  shall  begin  with  the  mean- 
ing of  the  peculiar  term,   "  uncover  nakedness" 

10 


106  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

and  afterward  notice  what  is  said  about  the  ab- 
sence of  the  word  marriage. 

Let  the  reader  carefully  notice,  that  the  term 
is  not  simple,  but  compound;  a  phrase,  not  a 
single  word. 

If  the  chapter  devoted  to  the  exposition  of  the 
phrase  under  consideration,  be  carefully  exam- 
ined, it  will  be  found  that  the  author  overlooks 
the  qualifying  influence  of  the  verb  uncover, 
and  confines  his  attention  almost  exclusively  to 
the  noun  nakedness.  This  surely  is  not  the 
way  to  explain  a  phrase,  however  it  may  answer 
for  giving  the  meaning  of  a  single  word. 

To  show  this  to  be  the  Puritan's  mode  of 
criticism,  may  be  cited  what  is  said  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  paragraph  :  "  But  before 
we  proceed  to  the  proof  that  the  word  is  ex- 
pressive of  crime/'  Observe,  he  does  not  say 
the  phrase,  but  the  word,  is  expressive  of  crime. 
In  the  last  paragraph  he,  adverting  to  the  phrase, 
says,  "  A  careful  attention  to  this  phrase  will 
show  that  it  imports  neither  marriage,  nor  the 
intercourse  of  married  persons,  but  criminal 
commerce,  involving  shame  and  dishonor."  How 
does  he  prove  this  ?     By  losing   sight  of  the 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  107 

phrase,  and  confining  his  attention  to  the  single 
word  ;  for  he  immediately  adds  :  "  The  Hebrew 
word  Fnns  rendered  nakedness,  in  its  prevailing 
use,  imports  uncleanness,  mid  that  disgrace  which 
is  inflicted  by  an  act  of  lewdness.  As  this  is  an 
idea,  which  seems  mainly  to  have  been  over- 
looked, by  writers  on  both  sides  of  this  discus- 
sion— as  it  is  of  itself  decisive  of  the  question, 
and  so  may  be  admitted  with  difficulty,  we  must 
be  excused  for  exhibiting  that  proof  in  consider- 
able detail." 

Accordingly,  he  bestows  through  the  two  fol- 
lowing pages  a  needless  amount  of  research  to 
show  the  meaning  of  this  single  term,  and  the 
corresponding  Greek  term. 

In  the  last  paragraph  on  the  13th  page,  he  in- 
sists that  the  phrase  uncover  nakedness  has,  in 
Levit.  18  :  14,  the  same  meaning  when  applied 
to  the  male,  as  it  has  when  applied  to  the  fe- 
male. Certainly  it  cannot  be  so.  The  naked- 
ness of  a  female  was  uncovered  by  an  act  com- 
mitted on  her  body  ;  but  the  nakedness  of  her 
husband  was  uncovered  by  this  act,  and  not  by 
an  act  committed  on  his  body  ;  and  by  this  act 
his  nakedness  was  said  to  be  uncovered,  because 


108  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

the  body  of  his  wife  was  his  property  ;  therefore 
what  was  done  to  her,  was  reputed  as  done  to 
her  husband. 

In  the  first  paragraph,  on  the  14th  page,  the 
Puritan  insists  that  the  term  nakedness  means 
dishonor,  both  when  applied  to  the  male  and  to 
the  female.  Allow  this  meaning,  and  make  the 
substitution  in  the  16th  verse,  and  it  will  read 
thus :  "  Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  dishonor  of 
thy  brother's  wife :  it  is  thy  brother's  dishonor." 
Now,  such  a  disclosure  might,  in  various  ways, 
be  made,  without  involving  an  act  of  lewdness 
on  the  part  of  the  author. 

4.  Having  made  these  remarks  on  the  author's 
critical  reasoning,  we  go  back  to  notice  what 
he  asserts  in  the  first  paragraph  of  page  11, 
"  The  term  uncover  nakedness,"  he  says,  "  of 
its  own  force  bears  the  idea  of  criminal  inter- 
course." This  we  deny,  and  assert  that  the 
phrase,  abstractly  considered,  in  relation  to  fe- 
males, signifies  sexual  intercourse ;  and  that  the 
character  of  this  intercourse  depends  entirely 
on  circumstances.  It  may  be  virtuous  and  hon- 
orable, or  it  may  be  vicious  and  criminal,  ac- 
cording as  it  is  the  intercourse  of  persons  legally 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  109 

married,  or  the  intercourse  of  persons  unmar- 
ried, or  not  legally  married.  Alms  given  from 
proper  motives,  and  in  a  proper  way,  is  widely 
different  from  alms  given  from  improper  motives, 
and  in  an  improper  manner.  The  former  is  a 
Christian  act,  acceptable  to  God;  the  latter  is 
not.* 

The  Puritan  is  not  only  erroneous  in  his  rea- 
soning, but  incorrect  in  his  quotations. 

He  asserts  (p.  14,  third  paragraph)  that  "  Sel- 
den,  in  all  the  numerous  instances  in  which  he 
had  occasion  to  use  this  word  in  all  his  writings, 
renders  it  by  the  Latin  word  turpitudo ;  and 
that  Jewish  Rabbies  define  it  as  expressing  all 
things  that  are  base  and  Jilthy,  and  every  thing 
base  in  word  and  deed.,} 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this,  we  say,  that  if  the 
Puritan  had  given  correctly  the  first  quotation 
he  offers  from  Selden,  (p.  12,  second  paragraph,) 
in  support  of  the  meaning  he  wishes  to  attach  to 
the  Hebrew  word,  it  would  have  disproved  his 

*  Under  the  verb  f-[^5  Gescnius'  Lexicon,  translated 
by  Robinson,  says,  "  To  uncover  the  nakedness  of  a 
woman,  i.  e.,  to  have  carnal  intercourse  with  her,  Lev. 
18  :  8  sq.  20  :  17  sq. 

10* 


110  LEV1TICAL    STATUTES 

assertion;  and  shown  too  that  these  Levitical 
prohibitions  forbid  marriages  with  certain  rela- 
tives, as  well  as  single  incestuous  acts.  His 
quotation  seems  to  be  singularly  defective ;  and 
of  course  misrepresents  the  meaning  of  Selden. 
There  are  two  defects,  one  at  the  beginning, 
and  the  other  at  the  end ;  and  the  supply  of  both 
is  necessary  to  show  the  true  meaning  of  the 
passage. 

We  shall  supply  these  defects,  and  mark  the 
first  omission  by  brackets. 

["  Lex  sacra  cle  incestu  ad  hunc  modum  lo- 
quitur,] (we  omit  the  Hebrew  text,)  Nullu9 
ad  propinquum  carnis  suae  accedat  ad  revel- 
audum  turpitudinem  ejus,  &,c.  Scilicet  to  m-is 
sic  in  Vulgata  nee  male  vertitur,  uti  et  Graecis 
aa/rlfio(TvvT]i  quod  idem  sonat."  So  far  the  Puri- 
tan ;  but  immediately  after  Selden  says,  "  Nuditas 
item  (quae  primaria  est  vocis  significatio)  vercn- 
da,  pudibunda,  pro  eodem  hie  substituitur  ;  unde 
m-ns  Rabbinis  turn  omni  modo  incestus  genere 
turn  pro  foeminis  hoc  nomine  hie  interdictis 
usurpari  solet,  uti  et  !THS  pro  earum  qualibet,  ut 
matre,  sorore,  amita,  martertsra,  num."* 

*  Uxor  Ebr.  Lib.  I.  chap.  3,  p.  539. 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  Ill 

Now,  when  the  whole  passage,  as  it  stands  in 
Sclden,  is  read,  how  apparent  is  it,  that  the 
Puritan's  quotation  fails  in  presenting  the  true 
meaning  of  this  oriental  scholar.  Sclden  here 
certainly  considered  the  6th  verse  of  Lev.  18,  a 
part  of  which  he  recites,  as  referring  to  incest. 
What  is  incest?  The  crime  of  cohabiting  or  of 
sexual  intercourse  between  those  who,  on  ac- 
count of  near  relationship,  are  interdicted  mar- 
riage. If  a  man  have  commerce  with  a  female 
to  whom  he  does  not  sustain  such  a  relation,  his 
sin  may  be  fornication  or  adultery ;  but  it  can- 
not be  incest.  If  then  Selden  regarded  the 
sixth  verse  as  referring  to  incest,  he  must  have 
regarded  all  the  prohibitions  in  the  subsequent 
verses,  which  amplify  and  explain  the  general 
rule  in  the  sixth,  as  referring  to  the  same  of- 
fence.  Incest  can  be  committed  only  by  per- 
sons whose  marriage  is  interdicted.  The  words, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  above  quotation, 
omitted  by  the  Puritan,  are  a  key  to  Selden's 
meaning,  and  ought  to  have  been  recited. 

The  words  too  that  immediately  follow  his 
quotation,  should  have  been  connected  with  it ; 
because  they  were  necessary  to  let  the  reader 


112  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

see  the  mind  of  this  learned  man  in  regard  to 
the  signification  of  the  Hebrew  term  on  which 
our  brother  labors  so  much.  And  what  do  they 
discover  ?  Why,  that  Selden,  while  he  admitted 
that  it  was  not  badly  rendered  by  turpitudo  in 
Latin,  and  by  aayr^oavvri  in  Greek,  believed  its 
primary  signification  to  be  nakedness,  and  that 
it  signified  too  verenda,  pudibunda;  and  that 
the  Rabbins  were  accustomed  to  designate  by 
rrns  any  interdicted  female,  as  a  mother,  a  sis- 
ter, an  aunt  by  the  father's  side,  an  aunt  by  the 
mother's  side,  a  daughter-in-law . 

Is  it  not  then  perfectly  clear,  that  Selden  does 
not,  as  the  Puritan  affirms,  always  render  this 
word  by  turpitudo  in  Latin  ;  and  that  the  Jewish 
Rabbies  apply  it  to  designate  objects  or  persons 
that  are  far  from  being  "  base  ^.nAjiltky  ?" 

In  the  next  paragraph,  referring  to  another 
quotation  from  Selden,  he  says,  "  Here  we  have 
his  testimony  direct,  that  the  word  which  our 
opponents  suppose  to  mean  marriage,  expresses 
some  unlawful  connexion."  How  unjust  in  our 
brother  to  impute  to  us  what  we  do  not  hold ! 
We  do  not  believe  the  word  means  mar- 
riage ;  and  it  may  be  fairly  presumed,  he  never 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  113 

heard  any  intelligent  person  say  so.  We  believe, 
as  Selden  states,  its  primary  signification  to  be 
nakedness,  and  as  it  is  used  in  the  Levitical  pro- 
hibitions in  connexion  with  the  verb  uncover,  to 
express  sexual  intercourse;  and  that  the  pro- 
hibitions not  only  respect  single  incestuous  acts, 
but  are  also  intended  to  interdict  incestuous 
marriages. 

The  quotation  in  the  paragraph  next  to  the 
last,  on  the  same  page,  (p.  12,)  is  faulty.  The 
translation  is  incorrect,  and  the  Latin  quotation, 
at  the  foot  of  the  page,  leaves  out  very  material 
words.  It  is  offered  as  "  the  testimony  of  a 
Jewish  Rabbi,  Solomon  Jarchi."  As  it  is  found 
in  Selden,  in  the  same  book  and  chapter  from 
which  the  preceding  quotation  was  taken,  we 
presume  the  Puritan  derived  it  from  that  source, 
though  it  is  not  so  stated. 

It  has  been  seen  how  he  labors  to  support  his 
cause  by  the  authority  of  the  great  oriental  scho- 
lar ;  and  that  his  first  quotation,  when  fairly  set 
before  the  reader,  by  exhibiting  it  in  connexion 
with  what  went  before  and  followed  after  it  in 
Selden,  entirely  fails  to  sustain  his  assertion.  A 
similar  example  is  now  to  be  presented  where 


114  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

the  Puritan  has  omitted  at  the  besinninor  what 
was  necessary  to  a  correct  understanding  of  his 
quotation,  as  well  as  a  parenthesis  that  throws 
light  upon  it. 

We  shall  quote  the  whole  from  Sclden,  and 
leave  it  with  the  reader  to  compare  our  quota- 
tion with  that  of  our  brother.  "  Unde  Salomon 
Jarchius  ad  iilud  Deut.  xxiii.  2.  Non  ingredia- 
tur  Mamzer  in  coetum  Domini  (quod  de  matri- 
monio  cum  Israelitide  contrahendo,  ac  si  dictum 
fuisset,  mbsna*'  aWT  *6,  Non  ducat  in  uxorem 
Israelitidem,  exponunt.)  The  Hebrew  terms  we 
omit.  "Mamzer,  inquit,  is  duntaxat  est,  qui ez 
coitu  excisione  plectendo  nascitur,  aut  (quod 
magis  dicendum)  ex  eo  qui  ex  sent entia  for ensi 
ultimo  plectendus  supplicio.  Nam  inter  coitus, 
qui  nomine  frhs  ^aa/rjfioavvijg  sue  turpiduninis ) 
signantius  denotantur,  (Levitico  xviii.  and  xxi.) 
nullus  est  ex  sententia  forensi  ultimo  supplicio 
plectendus,  ad  quern  simul  excisionis  pana  non 
attinet"  If  the  reader  will  compare  this  quo- 
tation with  that  of  the  Puritan,  he  will  see  that 
there  is  a  material  difference;  an  important 
omission  at  the  becrinninor  and  the  omission  of 
a  material  parenthesis  in  the  middle  of  his  quot- 
ation. 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  115 

His  translation  too  is  incorrect;  for  it  is  made 
to  exclude  the  idea  of  marriage,  which  is  pre- 
sented so  distinctly  to  our  view  by  the  part 
omitted  by  him  at  the  beginning.  The  word 
coitus,  which  signifies  conjunction,  union,  coi- 
tion, he  improperly  renders,  in  one  place,  "  an 
act  of  lewdness,"  and  in  another,  "  acts  of  lewd- 
ness :"  and  this  is  done  to  sustain  his  assertion 
that  rrl'iS  always  signifies,  in  Selden's  writings, 
what  is  base,  and  never  has  reference  to  mar- 
riage. If  the  quotation  be  closely  examined,  it 
will  be  seen  that  this  Jewish  Rabbi  had  two 
kinds  of  coition  in  view ;  one  which  cut  off  the 
offspring  from  the  congregation,  and  another 
which  was  punishable  with  death.  Dr.  Clarke, 
in  his  commentary  on  Deut.  23 :  2,  says, 
"  Mamzer,  which  is  here  rendered  bastard, 
should  be  understood  as  implying  the  offspring 
of  an  illegitimate  or  incestuous  mixture."  Such 
an  offspring  might  be  the  fruit  of  an  illegal 
marriage  between  an  Israelitish  woman  and  a 
heathen  man ;  or  of  an  incestuous  marriage  be- 
tween a  Hebrew  man  anc}  a  Hebrew  woman ;  or 
of  illegitimate  intercourse. 

How  well  this  accords  with  the  views  of  the 


116  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

great  oriental  scholar,  will  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing quotation,  in  which  he  expresses  his  own 
apprehension  of  what  was  signified  by  "  children 
born  of  incest."  It  is  found  on  the  same  page 
with  the  faulty  quotation  of  the  Puritan,  and  a 
little  before  it.  "  De  Liberis  ex  inccstu  genitis 
(quod  et  de  concubinis  et  de  uxoribus  in- 
genuis  and  Israeliticis,  sed  quibuscum  sive  ob  af- 
jinitatcms\xe  ob  consanguinitatem  matrimonium 
contrahi  non  poterat,  intclligo)  ita  Moses  Mai- 
monides,"  &c.  Maimonides  speaks  of  a  Mam- 
zer,  and  asserts  that  he  could  succeed  to  the  in- 
heritance, just  as  another  son  or  brother. 

On  this  quotation  we  offer  two  remarks. 
First,  Selden  here  plainly  asserts,  that  children 
begotten  of  freeborn  Israelitish  concubines,  or 
wives,  with  whom,  on  account  of  affinity  or  con- 
sanguinity, a  Hebrew  man  could  not  lawfully 
contract  marriage,  were  children  of  incest. 
Secondly,  this  implies  that  he  believed  that  God 
had  given  to  his  people  Israel  a  law  which  pro- 
hibited marriages,  on  the  ground  both  of  affinity 
and  consanguinity.  And  where  is  that  law  to 
be  found  except  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
Leviticus  1  the  sixth  verse  of  which  he  quotes, 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  117 

when  he  says,  "  The  sacred  law  speaks  of  incest 
in  this  manner."     See  above,  page  118. 

The  Puritan's  quotation  from  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan  (p.  15,  3d  par.)  is,  like  the  preceding, 
incorrect  and  faulty. 

The  Hebrew  word  rtlTO  is  not  used  by  the 
Jewish  writer  where  he  places  it,  nor  in  any 
other  part  of  the  comment;  but  the  Chaldaic 
form,  which  in  the  Latin  translation  is  rendered 
by  the  term  turpitudo.  The  translation  is : 
"  Vir  qui  duxerit  uxorem  fratris  sui  in  vita  sui, 
abominatio  est :  (a^rns)  turpitudinem  (x^*1^^) 
fratris  sui  retexit ;  absque  prole  erunt."  The 
comment  on  Jonathan's  meaning  is  entirely 
wrong.  He  contends  that  this  Jewish  writer 
believed  that  a  brother's  nakedness  could  not 
be  uncovered  after  his  death,  and  that  therefore 
it  necessarily  followed,  that  the  offence  here 
spoken  of  could  have  no  reference  to  marriao-e. 
If  the  Puritan  had  examined  Jonathan* 's  com- 
ment on  Levit.  18 :  16,  he  would  have  better 
understood  his  mind.  Here  is  the  Latin  trans- 
lation :  "  Turpitudinem  uxoris  fratris  tui  non 
revel abis  vivente  fratre  tuo,  aut  post  mortem  ejus 
si  habeat  filios :  nuditas  fratris  tui  est."  From  this 

11 


118  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

we  learn — 1.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  Jonathan, 
if  a  man  had  sexual  intercourse  with  his  broth- 
er's wife,  while  his  brother  was  living,  it  would 
be  a  violation  of  the  prohibition  in  the  16th 
verse ; — 2.  That  if  his  deceased  brother  had 
children  by  her,  it  would  be  unlawful  for  him  to 
marry  her  ; — and  3.  That  uncovering  her  naked- 
ness after  his  decease  would  uncover  his  naked- 
ness ;  because  her  nakedness  was  considered  as 
his  nakedness  :  "  nuditas  fratris  tui  est."  There 
was  only  one  exception  to  the  general  rule  in 
the  16th  verse.  If  a  Jew  died  without  children, 
his  brother  could  lawfully  marry  his  widow,  or 
uncover  her  nakedness  without  offence ;  but  in 
'dll  other  cases,  the  prohibition  was  binding. 

That  this  Jewish  Rabbi  did  not  (in  Levit.  20  : 
21)  refer  to  an  adulterous  connexion  with  a 
brother's  wife,  may  be  inferred  from  the  penal- 
ty specified  by  him  :  f  absque  prole  erunt." 
Such  a  connexion  he  well  knew  was  punishable 
with  death  (Levit.  20:  10)  ;  and  this  he  notices 
in  his  comment  on  the  verse  just  named,  and 
points  out  the  different  modes  of  inflicting  this 
penalty,  according  as  the  crime  was  committed 
with  an  espoused  virgin  or  a  married  woman. 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  119 

The  penalty  specified  by  him,  ("  absque  prole 
erunt,")  evinces  that  he  had  regard  to  the  of- 
fence committed  by  a  man  who  married  his 
brother's  divorced  wife,  while  he  was  living. 
Of  the  true  meaning  of  the  original  Hebrew 
text,  we  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  speak. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  Arabic  version  of 
Levit.  20 :  21 :  "  Et  quisque  vir  acceperit  ux- 
orem  fratris  sui  quae  est  remota  ah  ipso  quando- 
quidem  detexit  turpitudinem  fratris  sui,  morien- 
tur  ambo  orbi." 

How  many  erroneous  quotations  have  been 
made  by  the  Puritan!  1.  From  Jeremy  Tay- 
lor ; — 2.  From  Turrcttin  ; — 3.  From  Seidell ; 
4.  From  Salomon  Jarchi ; — 5.  From  Jonathan, 
the  Jewish  Rabbi.  See  above,  pp.  21,  22,  84. 
110-116,  117. 

6.  Had  the  Puritan  opened  Simon's  or  Gese- 
nius'  Lexicon,  he  would  have  seen  that  the  word 
rrns>  signifies — 1.  Nakedness  in  general ; — 2. 
Specially,  nuditas  pudendorum  ; — 3.  Metonymi- 
cally,  turpitudo. 

The  different  meanings  of  the  word  being 
thus  ascertained  from  a  Hebrew  Lexicon,  the 
next  point  to  be  determined  is,  which  of  these 


120  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

three  meanings  is  best  adapted  to  its  connexion 
with  the  verb  uncover,  in  application  to  a  female. 
In  this  connexion  it  seems  obvious,  that  the 
second  meaning  should  be  selected. 

No  one  can  doubt  what  is  meant  by  the  na- 
kedness of  Noah,  (where  the  word  MliS  occurs 
for  the  first  time  in  the  Bible,)  which  his  two 
sons  so  discreetly,  and  with  such  filial  reverence, 
covered  with  a  garment,  while  they  went  back- 
ward, that  they  might  not  see  their  father's  na- 
kedness.    (Gen.  9 :  23.) 

The  word  occurs  a  second  time  in  Gen.  42  : 
12,  where  it  is  rendered  "  the  nakedness  of  the 
land;  and  that  this  means  its  destitution  of  de- 
fence, or  defenceless  condition,  is  very  obvious. 
In  Exod.  28  :  42,  we  meet  with  it  a  third  time, 
where  the  signification  of  ni"»s>  itoa,  translated 
their  nakedness,  cannot  be  misunderstood.  Then 
the  word  appears  so  often  in  Levit.  18  :  6-18.* 

And  when  the  great  Lawgiver  pronounces  the 
prohibition,  that  a  man   shall  not  uncover  the 

*  Buxtorf,  in  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  this 
word,  says,  "  JYuditas  corporis  humani  propalam  turpis 
et  pudenda  ccnsetur,  mazime  partium  genilalium,  qua 
natura  tecta    voluit." 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  121 

nakedness  of  sundry  female  relations,  is  it  rea- 
sonable to  doubt  which  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word,  translated  nakedness,  is  suggested  1  Does 
He  not  refer  to  the  pudenda  ?  and  is  it  not  plain 
that,  connected  as  it  is  with  the  verb  uncover, 
the  prohibition  forbids  sexual  intercourse  ?  Com- 
pare with  these  prohibitions  Levit.  20  :  17. 

This  in  effect  is  admitted  by  the  Puritan  ; 
for,  in  p.  1 1,  he  denominates  the  acts  forbidden, 
"  single'  acts  of  an  incestuous  character."  And 
the  whole  paragraph,  from  which  these  words 
are  quoted,  shows  that  he  saw  the  acts  prohibit- 
ed to  be  acts  of  unlawful  sexual  intercourse.  It 
was,  then,  unnecessary  for  him  to  labor  so  much 
on  the  meaning  of  the  single  word  UTiS  ;  and 
indeed  his  labor  was  worse  than  useless  ;  for  it 
led  him  astray.  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  he 
presents,  in  the  paragraph  referred  to  before  he 
enters  on  his  learned  research ;  but  when  he  ar- 
rives at  the  end  of  it,  he  is  so  misled,  by  dwell- 
ing so  much  on  a  single  word,  that  he  substi- 
tutes the  meaning  of  this  single  word  that  best 
pleased  him  for  the  two  words  ;  and  a  general 
for  a  definite  phrase.  The  plain  and  obvious 
terms  of  the  law,  he  explains  by  terms  that  do 

11* 


122  LEVIT1CAL    STATUTES 

not  well  define  the  acts  prohibited.  The  law 
says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness 
of  thy  father's  wife  ;"  and  he  imagines  he  gives 
its  meaning,  by  saying,  "  Thou  shalt  not  dis- 
honor thy  father's  wife."  Now,  as  such  a  rela- 
tive might  be  dishonored  in  various  ways  and 
by  different  acts,  the  question  will  arise,  Does 
the  law  refer  to  one  act,  to  one  way,  or  to  all 
acts  and  ways  of  dishonoring  a  relative  ?  This 
we  apprehend  to  be  obscuring,  rather  than  ex- 
plaining the  law.  The  particular  act  that  would 
produce  dishonor  to  a  female  relative,  is  speci- 
fied in  the  law ;  but  the  Puritan  thinks  he  ex- 
plains the  prohibition,  by  substituting  the  effect 
for  the  cause. 

At  the  top  of  p.  12  he  says,  "The  Seventy 
translate  the  word  in  all  the  instances  in  which 
it  occurs,  in  these  chapters,  by  the  word 
aaxrifioavvr),  which  signifies  baseness,  or  a  base 
act.  And  they  render  this  text,  '  Thou  shalt  not 
dishonor  or  expose  to  shame,'  "  &c.  In  this  the 
Puritan  is  erroneous. 

Robinson,  in  his  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament,  gives,  as  one  meaning  of  this  word, 
pudenda ;  and  very  properly    supporting    it  by 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  123 

Rev.  16 :  15,  adds,  "  So  Sept.  and  rtns  Ex  20 : 
26,  Lev.  18 :  6,  7."  Charles  Thomson,  in  his 
translation  of  the  Septuagint,  has  rendered  it,  in 
Lev.  18,  as  it  is  in  our  English  translation  of  the 
Hebrew:  "  The  nakedness  of  thy  father's  wife 
shalt  thou  not  uncover,"  &,c.  The  nakedness 
of  thy  brother's  wife  thou  shalt  not  uncover,  &,c. 
Grotius,  commenting  on  the  word  turpitudinem, 
used  by  the  Vulgate,  in  Levit.  18  :  6,  says,  rrns, 
id  est  nuditatem,  Hebraei  vocant  partes  quae  nudse 
dedecent.  IdeoLXX.  aa/tjfioaw^p  inhonestatem. 
Paulus  1  Cor.  12  :  23,  t«  uayr^ova  [inhonesta]. 

In  the  2d  paragraph,  on  the  12th  page,  the 
Puritan  reiterates  what  he  had  before  asserted  : 
"  Now,  both  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  hV}S> 
and  ccawfiocrvvt],  we  put  it  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  that  unlawful  intercourse  is  here  the 
thing  forbidden." 

The  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  uncover  naked- 
ness," as  to  the  criminality  of  the  act,  depends, 
we  have  shown,  upon  circumstances.  The  act 
may  be  virtuous  or  vicious.  The  terms  in  which 
it  is  expressed,  do  not  of  themselves  denote  its 
character  ;  they  merely  signify,  in  a  delicate  way, 
the  act.  In  this  chapter,  as  they  are  used  in 
prohibitory  statutes,  they  do,  in  general,  mark 


124  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

criminal  intercourse.  Yet  there  is  found  one 
exception.  The  17th  verse  says,  "  Thou  shalt 
not  uncover  the  nakedness  of  a  woman  and  her 
daughter."  Now,  we  apprehend,  the  law  does 
not  here  forbid  a  man  to  have  intercourse  with 
a  woman  to  whom  he  is  married,  but  only  to 
have  intercourse  with  the  daughter  of  his  wife. 
Our  translation  is,  we  think,  unfortunate.  The 
original  word  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  ren- 
dered in  other  verses  by  the  English  word  wife; 
and  had  it  been  so  translated,  the  ambiguity 
would  have  been  avoided.  It  would  then  have 
read  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness 
of  a  wife  and  her  daughter." 

The  Hebrew  word  is  translated  uxor,  wife, 
both  by  the  Septuagint  and  by  the  Vulgate  ;  and 
Charles  Thomson  has  very  properly  used  the 
term  wife,  in  his  version  of  the  Septuagint.  The 
Hebrews  understood  the  word  to  signify  wife. 
See  Selden  De  Lege  Nat.  et  Gen.  Lib.  v.  chap. 
i.,  p.  590. 

Here,  then,  the  phrase  is  used  to  express  the 
lawful  intercourse  of  married  persons  ;  and  this 
intercourse  is  pronounced  by  the  Supreme  Law- 
giver to  be  "  honorable  in  all." 

O 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  125 

The  reader  may  now  look  at  the  assertion  of 
the  Puritan,  which,  by  large  capitals,  he  has 
placed  in  bold  relief,  on  page  14,  and  know  how 
to  appreciate  it.  If  the  terms  have  not  the  sense 
of  marriage,  they  are  sometimes  used  to  express 
the  intercourse  that  pertains  to  marriage.  He 
may  learn  too  that  the  author  is  in  error,  where 
he  confidently  asserts,  of  this  phrase,  (p.  11,) 
"  It  so  embodies  the  idea  of  a  criminal  connexion, 
as  to  exclude  that  of  marriage ;  and  that  a  He- 
brew writer  would  no  more  use  it  to  express  the 
idea  of  marriage,  than  he  would  use  the  term 
adultery."  Moses,  we  see,  writing  under  inspi- 
ration, has  used  these  terms  in  reference  to  the 
intercourse  of  married  persons. 

7.  If  we  felt  disposed,  we  might  put  our  bro- 
ther, the  Puritan,  to  some  trouble  to  sustain 
what  he  regards  as  so  easy  to  sustain,  the  mean- 
ing of  "  the  term  wife,  in  these  texts."  (Chap. 
4,  par.  3.)  He  alleges  there  are  "  forty-nine 
cases  where  the  proper  term  (wife)  is  used," 
against  seven  in  which  the  term  widow  is  found. 
In  reference  to  this  arithmetical  criticism,  we 
might  say,  the  primary  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word,  rendered  in  these  statutes  by  the  word 


126  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

wife,  is  woman.  So  it  is  translated  in  very  many 
places;  and  therefore,  according  to  his  rule,  he 
ought  to  assign  a  reason  for  its  being  rendered, 
in  these  texts,  by  the  term  wife.  Had  he  recol- 
lected this  primary  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word, 
he  would  not  (guided  by  sound)  have  said,  "  It 
may  seem  presumption  in  me,  to  contend  that 
the  text  means  what  it  says."  We  shall  not  put 
him  to  this  trouble ;  we  shall  agree  to  receive 
the  translation  as  correct. 

We  have  however  a  reply  to  offer  to  a  ques- 
tion he  proposes  in  p.  17  :  "  Is  not  then  the  in- 
ference irresistible,  that  when  no  such  special 
reasons  for  departing  from  the  accustomed  use 
can  be  shown,  the  term  wife  is  to  be  understood 
to  mean  wife,  and  nothing  else  ?" 

Now,  while  we  admit  the  correctness  of  the 
version  of  the  term,  we  contend,  that  in  all  the 
statutes  included  in  verses  6-16,  the  term  wife 
does  signify  more  than  what  it  usually  express- 
es; it  means,  from  the  very  import  of  these  pro- 
hibitory statutes,  the  wife,  not  only  while  her 
husband  is  living,  but  when  he  is  dead,  and  she 
left  in  a  state  of  widowhood.  How  long  is  a 
man   forbidden  to  have  incestuous  intercourse 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  127 

with  his  mother  ?  Only  during  his  father's  life- 
time ?  May  he  marry  his  mother  after  his  fa- 
ther's decease,  and  thus  render  sexual  intercourse 
with  her  who  bare  him  and  brought  him  into  the 
world  lawful  and  honorable  ?  Nature  abhors 
the  idea;  the  divine  statute  prohibits  forever  all 
such  unnatural  commerce  between  a  parent  and 
her  child,  as  peremptorily  when  his  father  is 
dead,  as  while  he  is  living.  Is  not  the  prohibi- 
tion perpetual  too  in  regard  to  a  father's  wife? 
in  regard  to  an  aunt,  the  wife  of  a  father's  bro- 
ther? in  regard  to  a  son's  wife  ?  Can  any  form 
of  marriage  cover  the  iniquity  of  intercourse  be- 
tween such  near  relations  ?  Is  not  sexual  com- 
merce forever  forbidden  between  a  man  and 
such  females,  as  well  when  they  are  widows,  as 
while  their  husbands  are  living?  Do  not  these 
statutes  prohibit  even  the  thought  of  such  inti- 
macy, under  any  circumstances? 

8.  The  Puritan  asks,  Why  the  term  marriage 
was  not  used,  if  the  Lawgiver  intended  by  these 
statutes  to  prohibit  marriage  ?  We  promised  an 
answer  to  his  question.  The  preceding  remarks 
will  suo-aest  one.  Infinite  Wisdom,  designing  by 
these  statutes,  to  fix  the  mark  of  reprobation  on 


128  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

all  sexual  intercourse  between  near  relations, 
under  all  circumstances,  uses  the  terms  here 
recorded,  as  the  fittest  to  express  His  will ;  and, 
therefore,  forebore  to  employ  the  term  marriage 
in  reference  to  connexions  that  no  form  of  mar- 
riage could  sanctify  and  render  honorable. 

These  statutes,  then,  while  *they  prohibit  all 
sexual  intercourse  between  near  relations,  as 
incestuous,  have  reference  to  marriage,  and  do 
impliedly  forbid  it. 

Another  proof  of  such  reference  may  be  found 
in  Levit.  20  :  21.  Mark  the  penalty  annexed  to 
the  crime.  "  They  shall  be  childless."  And 
what  was  the  crime  from  which  this  threatening 
was  designed  to  deter  1  Was  it,  as  the  Puritan 
imagines,  an  adulterous  connexion  with  a  bro- 
ther's wife?  Was  adultery  committed  with  such 
a  relative  less  heinous,  than  adultery  committed 
with  another  woman  to  whom  the  offender  was 
not  nearly  related  1  Certainly  not.  It  was  a 
greater  crime.  By  the  10th  verse  of  this  chap- 
ter, the  crime  of  adultery  was  to  be  punished 
with  death ;  and  it  will  follow,  that  if  the  crime 
contemplated  in  the  2 1st  verse  had  been  adul- 
tery, the  offender  would  have  been  deserving  of 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  129 

this  punishment,  and  the  appropriate  penalty 
would  have  been  annexed,  as  in  all  the  preced- 
ing verses. 

Besides,  the  desire  of  procreating  children  is 
no  incentive  to  defile  the  bed  of  a  brother.  The 
adulterer  is  prompted  to  his  crime  merely  by  his 
unbridled  lusts,  which  he  seeks  to  gratify.  The 
threatening  of  being  childless  was  no  appropriate 
punishment  of  such  a  crime. 

But  to  deter  from  marrying  a  brother's  wife, 
when  repudiated  by  him,  or  after  his  death,  it 
was  appropriate.  The  Jews  had  a  great  desire 
for  children  ;  and  a  threatening  that  they  should 
be  childless,  if  they  violated  the  law  by  contract- 
ing marriage,  was  likely  to  deter  from  this  sin. 

The  Jews,  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.,  re- 
garded the  Levitical  prohibitions  as  having  re- 
spect to  marriage.  "  Many  of  the  Jewish  Rab- 
bins," says  Burnet,  "  did  give  it  under  their 
hand  in  Hebrew,  That  the  laws  of  Leviticus  and 
Deuteronomy  were  thus  to  be  reconciled :  That 
the  law  of  marrying  a  brother's  wife,  when  he 
died  without  children,  did  only  bind  in  the  land 
of  Judea,  to  preserve  families,  and  maintain 
their  successions  in  the  land,  as  it  had  been 
12 


130  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

divided  by  lot;  but  that  in  all  other  places  in  the 
world,  the  law  of  Leviticus  of  not  marrying  the 
brother's  wife,  was  obligatory."* 

Indeed,  the  Puritan  has  in  fact  yielded  the 
reference  of  these  statutes  to  marriage,  in  the 
character  (so  often  referred  to)   which  he  gives 
to  sexual  intercourse  between  relations  designa- 
ted in  the  Levitical  law ;  for,  if  it  were  at  any 
time  lawful  for  them  to  marry,  their  intercourse 
might  be  denominated  fornication  or  adultery, 
but  it  could  not  be  called  incest ;  because  incest 
is  the  crime  of  cohabiting  or  sexual  commerce 
between  persons  so  nearly   related,  that  their 
marriage  is  declared  to  be  unlawful.     Hence, 
the  Jews,  who  never  thought  of  calling  in  ques- 
tion the  application  of  these  Levitical  statutes  to 
marriage,  maintained,  as  Selden  informs  us,  that 
if  an  unmarried  man  were  to  lie  with  a  woman 
and  her  dauphter,  or  with  a  woman  and  her  sis- 
ter,  he  would  not  be  guilty   of  incest,  however 
criminal  his  conduct  might  be.f 


*  Burnet's  Hist.,  p.  143. 

t  De  Jure  Nat.  et  Gen.    Lib.  V.,  chap,  x.,  pp.  545, 
546. 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  131 

From  all  the  evidence  presented  to  prove  the 
reference  of  the   Levitical  prohibitions  to  mar- 
riage, we  may  conclude,  that  the  Puritan  has 
failed  to  establish  the  contrary  doctrine,  which, 
at  the  close  of  his   fourth   chapter,  he  imagines 
to  be   fully   proved.     All   the  statutes  refer  to 
marriage  ;   and   as  those  which  prohibit  sexual 
intercourse  between  parents  and  children,  bro- 
thers and  sisters,  uncles  and  nieces,  prohibit,  at 
the  same  time,  all  attempts  to  sanctify  such  in- 
tercourse by  marriage  ;  so  it  is  with  the  prohi- 
bitions that  respect  a  brother's  wife,  and  a  wife's 
husband.     All  are  near  of  kin,  and  may  not  be 
approached.    God  has  forbidden  it  by  his  law. 

9.  But  the  Puritan  objects,  (p.  8,  3d  par.) 
"  In  our  view,  the  fact  that  God  commanded  a 
man  to  marry  a  brother's  widow,  proves  that 
there  is  no  immorality  in  such  marriages."  Nor 
was  there  immorality  in  the  marriages  of  broth- 
er's and  sisters,  when  in  the  commencement  of 
our  race  God  commanded  such  near  relations  to 
marry.  In  the  purpose  of  Abraham  to  slay  his 
son,  when  God  commanded  him  to  "  offer  him 
as  a  burnt  sacrifice,"  (Gen.  22  :  2 ;  Heb.  11: 
17-19,)  there  was  no  immorality,  but  a  signal 


132  LEVITICAL    STATUTES 

act  of  obedience  to  the  Divine  will;  nor  would 
there  have  been  any  immorality  in  the  patri- 
arch's conduct,  if,  at  the  command  of  God,  he 
had  actually  deprived  him  of  life.  But,  when 
"  the  angel  of  the  Lord  called  unto  him  out  of 
heaven,  Lay  not  thine  hand  upon  the  lad,  neither 
do  thou  any  thing  unto  him  ;"  if  he  had  executed 
his  purpose,  there  would  have  been  great  immo- 
rality in  his  murderous  act.  When,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  multiplication  of  the  human  race, 
the  marriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  became  un- 
lawful,  they  who,  contrary  to  the  Divine  will, 
contracted  such  marriages,  were  chargeable 
with  great  immorality.  And  so  now,  when  a 
man  marries  his  brother's  widow,  he  acts  in  a 
very  immoral  manner  ;  because  God  prohibits 
in  his  word  such  marriages.  Levit.  18  :  16,  and 
20  :  21. 

But,  as  it  was  the  duty  of  a  brother,  under 
the  Jewish  economy,  to  marry  the  childless 
widow  of  his  brother,  and  raise  up  seed  to  him, 
the  Puritan  still  objects,  and  says,  (in  the  close  of 
the  above  paragraph,)  "  We  must  insist,  that 
this  command  to  marry  a  brother's  widow  proves 
that  such  marriages  were  not  abhorrent  to  na- 


RELATE    TO    MARRIAGE.  133 

ture."  This  objection  he  has  himself,  in  effect, 
answered  by  a  quotation  from  Turrettin ;  from 
which  it  appears,  that  some  precepts  of  the  Di- 
vine law  are  so  founded  in  the  nature  of  God 
and  the  nature  of  things  wThich  he  has  consti- 
tuted,  that  they  cannot  be  altered,  and  must 
remain  unchanged ;  and  that  others  are  not  so 
founded,  but  "  founded  in  the  nature  of  things 
constituted  in  a  particular  way."  Such  precepts 
may  be  changed  by  the  exercise  of  God's  sove- 
reign authority.     (See  his  p.  8,  last  par.) 

And  were  we  to  admit  the  marriage  in  ques- 
tion was  "  not  abhorrent  to  nature,"  in  the 
sense  attached  to  the  phrase  by  the  Puritan,  it 
would  not  follow  that  it  is  now  lawful.  Can 
Jehovah  forbid  no  marriages  but  such  as  nature 
abhors?  or,  in  other  words,  his  short-sighted, 
erring,  and  misguided  creatures  see  and  allow 
to  be  improper  and  wrong  1  In  commemoration 
of  his  resting  from  his  works  of  creation,  He 
enacted  the  fourth  commandment  in  the  Deca- 
logue, which  required  the  Hebrew  people  to 
sanctify  the  seventh  day  ;  and  violations  of  this 
dJay  were,  by  his  judicial  law,  punishable  with 
death,  by  the   civil  magistrate,  as  long  as  the 

12* 


134  LEVITICAL    STATUTES,    ETC. 

fourth  commandment  remained  unchanged  ;  but 
now,  under  the  new  dispensation,  we  observe, 
as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  in  commemoration  of  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord,  and  the  finishing  of  the  glorious  work 
of  redemption.  So  in  regard  to  the  statute  pro- 
hibiting a  man  marrying  his  brother's  widow,  the 
sovereign  authority  that  enacted  could,  at  anytime 
and  in  such  circumstances  as  He  deemed  proper, 
suspend  its  operation  ;  and,  as  the  reason  for 
which  its  operation  was  suspended  does  not, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  ever  occur, 
the  statute  has  become  invariable,  and  perpetu- 
ally forbids  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  bro- 
ther's widow. 

In  regard  to  the  interesting  subject  of  mar- 
riage, the  Puritan  may  prefer  being  guided  by 
human  legislators  and  his  own  interpretation  of 
nature;  but  we  prefer  being  guided  by  the  great 
and  unerring  Lawgiver  of  the  universe  ;  who 
knows  the  nature  of  things  which  He  has  con- 
stituted,  unspeakably  better  than  we  do,  and 
how  to  protect  his  own  institution,  so  as  best  to 
promote  His  own  glory  and  the  best  interests  of 
the  human  race. 


LEVITICAL    LAW,    ETC.  135 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

The  Levitical  law  a  natural  law. — Classification  of  the  Statutes. — 
Marshall's  objection. — His  singular  mistake. — Proofs  of  its  being 
a  natuial  law. — How  made  known. —  Opinion  of  Jurists. — Sum- 
mary of  its  prohibitions. — Chancellor  Kent's  definition. — The 
Puritan's  objections  answered. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  it  has  been  prov- 
ed, that  this  law  is  neither  ceremonial,  nor  civil 
or  judicial,  but  ecclesiastical  and  moral ;  moral, 
because  it  forbids  lewd  acts  of  an  incestuous 
character,  and  because  it  prescribes  the  limits 
of  marriage. 

These  statutes  constitute  one  law.  The 
number  of  the  prohibitions  does  not  affect  the 
unity  of  the  law.  The  Decalogue  has  ten  pre- 
cepts ;  but  they  are  one  moral  law.  The  human 
body  has  many  members  ;  yet  they  constitute 
one  body. 

So  these  statutes  form  but  one  law  of  incest. 


136  LEV1TICAL    LAW 

All  are  founded  on  the  same  basis  of  relation- 
ship by  consanguinity  or  affinity ;  all  have  the 
same  object,  domestic  purity  and  good  morals  in 
the  community ;  all  are  enforced  by  the  same 
spiritual  penalty,  excision  from  the  Church. 

But  the  classification  of  the  prohibitions,  from 
the  sixth  to  the  eighteenth  verse  inclusive,  but 
excluding  "  those  from  nineteenth  to  the  twenty- 
fourth,"  under  the  general  prohibition  contained 
in  the  sixth,  is  deemed  arbitrary.  Mr.  Marshall, 
regarding  the  sixth  verse  as  containing  "  the 
title  or  general  principle"  of  all  the  statutes  in 
this  chapter,  finds  it  to  be  unsuitable,  and  not  in 
accordance  with  the  accuracy  of  "  European  or 
American  legislators ;"  and  then  goes  on  to 
apologize  for  the  inaccuracy  of  the  inspired  law- 
giver, by  pleading  the  want  of  "  exact  classifica- 
tion or  logical  arrangement  in  discourse "  in 
"the  Asiatics."*  But  to  this  he  is  driven  by 
his  own  mistake.  Had  he  carefully  inspected 
the  chapter,  he  would  have  found  in  the  third 
and  fourth  verses  a  more  general  title  or  princi- 
ple, than  is  contained  in  the  sixth.     "  After  the 

*  Marshall,  pp.  86-88. 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  137 

doings  of  the  land  of  Egypt  wherein  ye  dwelt, 
shall  ye  not  do  ;  and  after  the  doings  of  the  land 
of  Canaan,  whither  I  bring  you,  shall  ye  not  do  : 
neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their  ordinances.  Ye 
shall  do  my  judgments,  and  keep  mine  ordinan- 
ces, to  walk  therein  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God." 
Here  is  a  principle  broad  enough  to  comprehend 
all  the  prohibitions  contained  in  this  chapter. 
How  came  our  brother  to  overlook  it?  Mr. 
Marshall  needs  an  apology,  not  Moses. 

The  prohibitions  are  various.  Let  us  glance 
at  them.     They  are  : 

1.  Against  incest,  in  various  specifications 
(v.  7-18) ;  all  contained  in  one  general  prohibi- 
tion :  v.  6. 

2.  Against  unseasonable  intercourse  :   v.  19. 

3.  Against  adultery  :  v.  20. 

4.  Against  idolatrous  worship  :    v.  21. 

5.  Against  sodomy  :  v.  22. 

6.  Against  bestiality  :  v.  23. 

All  these  prohibitions  certainly  range  under 
the  general  principle  expressed  in  the  third  and 
fourth  verses.  And  is  it  not  equally  manifest, 
that  the  specifications  in  verses  7-18,  come  na- 
turally under  the  general  rule  delivered  in  the 


138  LEVITICAL    LAW 

sixth  verse  ?  They  all  refer  to  incestuous  in- 
tercourse between  persons  nearly  related  by 
consanguinity  or  affinity.  We  repeat  it,  these 
prohibitions  all  rest  upon  the  same  common  basis ; 
they  form  one  law  of  incest ;  or,  if  you  prefer  it, 
one  section  of  the  general  law.  Their  basis, 
their  object,  their  penalty,  are  one  and  the 
same. 

This  law  is  rightly  denominated  a  natural  law  ; 
for  it  is  founded  in  nature.  By  this  we  mean, 
it  is  founded  on  the  natural  relation  which  sub- 
sists between  us,  dependent  creatures,  and  God, 
our  creator  and  preserver ;  and  the  relations 
which  He  has  constituted  between  us  and  some 
of  our  fellow-creatures,  as  social  beings.  It  may 
in  part  be  discovered  by  the  deductions  of  right 
reason,  unaided  by  a  icritten  revelation ;  but  it 
can  be  fully  known  only  by  the  light  of  that 
written  revelation  which  God  has  given  to  His 
Church. 

The  Puritan  speaks  of  "  the  voice  of  nature," 
— "the  book  of  nature," — "  the  law  of  nature," 
— and  of  being  "  abhorrent  to  nature."  But  he 
has  not  explained  his  meaning.  He  has  not  told 
us  how  the  voice  of  nature  speaks  to  us,  nor 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  139 

how  we  learn  to  know  what  in  regard  to  mar- 
riage is  abhorrent  to  nature. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  human  race,  it 
is  certain  the  voice  of  nature  did  not  forbid  the 
marriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  ;  nor  did  nature 
abhor  such  connexions.  They  were  right,  and 
approved  by  God ;  and  in  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  first  children  of  Adam  were  placed, 
brothers  and  sisters  felt  no  repugnance  of  nature 
to  marry  one  another. 

But,  in  subsequent  times,  when  the  human 
race  had  multiplied,  so  that  wives  could  be 
found  without  the  family  circle,  a  different  state 
of  feeling  was  produced,  and  men  regarded  the 
marriage  of  brothers  and  sisters  as  unlawful, 
and  contrary  to  the  Divine  will.  There  is  now 
a  repugnance  to  such  connexions.  They  are 
felt  to  be  incestuous,  and  are  to  be  abhorred. 

How  was  this  change  in  the  views  and  feel- 
ings of  men  on  this  subject  produced  ?  Was  a 
change  wrought  by  the  Creator's  hand,  in  the 
nature  of  man,  that  gave  rise  to  new  feelings 
and  new  views  1  or  did  the  great  Lawgiver  in- 
terpose, by  an  announcement  of  His  will,  that 
such  marriages  should  no  longer  be  contracted, 


140  LEVIT1CAL    LAW 

and  thus  excite  new  views  and  new  feelings  ? 
Which  is  the  more  probable  ?  When  we  con- 
sider how  frequently,  and  in  what  various  ways, 
He  has  graciously  condescended  to  reveal  His 
will  to  the  children  of  men,  does  not  the  latter 
mode  appear  the  more  probable  ? 

We  know  inspired  teachers  were  not  wanting 
in  the  first  ages  of  the  world.  Such  were  Adam, 
Enoch,  and  Noah  ;  and  probably  others  of  whom 
we  have  not  heard.     Adam,  our  great  progeni- 
tor, had,  at  his  creation,  a  perfect  knowledge  of 
moral  duty  ;  for  he  was  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holi- 
ness.    He  had  also  a  vast  extent  of  intellect,  as 
appears  from  his  intuitive  view  of  the  nature  of 
marriage,  and  from  his  ability  to  give  appropri- 
ate names  to   all   cattle,  and  fowls,  and  beasts, 
as  they  were  brought  before  him  by  the  Creator. 
Gen.  2  :  19,  20.     His  intellect  was  indeed  dark- 
ened by  his  mournful   apostasy  (Gen.  3 :  10)  ; 
yet  we  have  reason  to  believe,  he  retained  much 
of  the  knowledge  imparted  to  him  at  his  creation, 
and  was  competent  to  instruct  his  posterity  on 
subjects  of  moral  duty,  as  well  as  to  preserve 
among  them  the  great  promise  of  a  coming  De- 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  141 

liverer,  the  expected  seed  of  the  woman,  who 
was  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  Was  not 
Adam  acquainted  with  the  law  of  incest?  Did 
he  not,  in  the  course  of  his  long  life,  extending 
over  930  years,  inform  his  descendants,  at  a 
proper  time,  that  it  was  the  will  of  God  that 
marriages  between  brothers  and  sisters  should 
cease?  By  the  inspired  historian  it  is  stated, 
that  the  improper  marriages  between  "the  sons 
of  God,"  the  professors  and  followers  of  the  true 
religion,  and  "the  daughters  of  men,"  apostates 
from  the  true  religion,  ungodly  men,  were  dis- 
pleasing to  the  Lord,  and  became  a  source  of 
irreligion  and  wickedness.     (Gen.  6 :  1-4.) 

Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  was  a  man  of 
eminent  piety.  "  He  walked  with  God  ;"  and 
as  a  reward  of  his  singular  piety,  he  was  trans- 
lated to  heaven,  and  exempted  from  the  pains 
and  corruption  of  death.  (Gen.  5  :  24.  Heb. 
11  :  5.)  This  pre-eminently  pious  man  was  a 
prophet,  as  we  are  informed  by  the  apostle  Jude  ; 
and  he  prophesied  to  the  Antediluvians  of  the 
second  coming  of  our  Lord,  with  his  holy  angels, 
to  execute  judgment  on  all  unrighteous  and  un- 
godly men.  And  while  he  warned  them  of  the 
13 


142  LEVITICAL    LAW 

approaching  judgment  and  coming  wrath,  by 
which  they  would  be  most  justly  punished  for 
their  sins,  did  he  not  state  distinctly  what  were 
the  sins  of  which  they  were  guilty,  and  what 
were  the  commandments  which  they  had  viola- 
ted? And  was  not  the  law  of  marriage  then 
known,  so  far  as  to  prohibit  the  union  of  broth- 
ers and  sisters'? 

Noah,  we  are  informed  by  Peter,  (2  Pet.  2 : 
5,)  was  "  a  preacher  of  righteousness ;"  and, 
during  the  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  of  God's 
forbearance,  when  He  afforded  space  for  repent- 
ance to  that  wicked  generation  of  men  who 
were  destroyed  by  the  flood,  this  godly  man  did 
not  cease  to  warn  them  of  their  imminent  dan- 
ger, and  urge  them  to  flee  from  their  sins.  Was 
not  this  inspired  man  acquainted  with  the  law 
of  incest  ?  Had  not  God  as  yet  revealed  His 
will  on  this  interesting  subject? 

The  Jews  had  a  tradition  about  the  seven  pre- 
cepts of  Noah;  among  them  was  one  relating  to 
incest.  It  is  highly  probable  that  his  descend- 
ants were  instructed  on  the  law  of  marriage, 
and  the  limits  set  to  this  intimate  connexion. 
The  religious  information  imparted  by  Noah, 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  143 

was  retained,  more  or  less,  by  the  nations  that 
sprung  from  him  ;  and  additional  light  in  regard 
to  religious  subjects,  was  diffused  among  Gen- 
tile nations,  by  intercourse  with  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple, who  lived  in  their  own  land,  and  those  who 
were  scattered  abroad  in  different  parts  of  the 
world,  especially  after  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
Their  sacred  scriptures  were  translated  into  the 
Greek  language,  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  the  Christian  aera. 

It  is  no  unreasonable  supposition,  that  the 
best  laws  and  customs  of  the  ancient  heathen 
nations  were  derived  from  Divine  revelation. 
Selden  expresses  his  belief  on  this  point,  in  the 
strongest  terms.  Referring  to  the  received  sen- 
timents and  institutions  of  Gentile  nations,  an- 
cient and  modern,  in  regard  to  incestuous  mar- 
riages, on  account  of  relationship,  he  says,  in  a 
parenthesis  :  "  Q,uae,  procul-dubio,  Legi  Sacrae 
ejus  que  interpretamentis  diversimode  acceptis, 
originem  suam  inprimis  debent."  Uxor  Ebraica 
Lib.  I.  chap.  vi.  This  learned  man  had  well 
studied  the  subject,  and  his  opinion  is  probably 
correct. 

The  repeated  revelations  of  the  Divine  will, 


144 


LEV1TICAL    LAW 


given  at  various  periods  of  the  world,  will  justi- 
fy the  belief,  that  God  has  left  none  of  his  crea- 
tures to  collect  the  knowledge  of  duty,  merely 
from  the  contemplation  of  the  nature  of  things ; 
but  has  revealed  and  announced  a  law  of  moral 
duty  and  of  marriage,  corresponding  with  the 
nature  of  things  established  by  Himself,  and 
which  of  course  He  knows  most  perfectly.  A 
portion  of  the  light  of  His  revelations  has  reach- 
ed, more  or  less,  all  nations. 

If  this  reasoning  be  or  be  not  admitted  as 
correct,  one  thing  has,  we  think,  been  proved  : 
God  has  revealed  a  law  of  incest,  and  authorita- 
tively determined  the  limits  of  legitimate  mar- 
riage; and  this  law  is  found  in  these  Levitical 
statutes.  The  prohibition  against  the  marriage 
of  parents  with  children,  and  of  brothers  with 
sisters,  is  generally  admitted  to  be  founded  in 
nature,  and  therefore  to  be  a  natural  law. 

But  beyond  this,  jurists  and  legislators  seem 
unwilling  to  extend  the  limits  of  unlawful  mar- 
riages. Sir  William  Scott,  however,  (after- 
wards Lord  Stowell,)  who  is  styled,  we  repeat 
it,  by  Chancellor  Kent,  "  a  great  master  of  pub- 
lic and  municipal  law,"  has  recently  adjudged  a 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  145 

marriage  between  an  uncle  and  a  niece  to  be 
incestuous;  "  a  nuisance  extremely  offensive  to 
the  laws  and  manners  of  society,  and  tending  to 
endless  confusion,  and  the  pollution  of  the  sanc- 
tity of  private  life."* 

Jurists  see  the  first  part  of  the  Levitical  law  to 
be  founded  in  nature.  For  this  ihey  are  able  to 
assign  sufficient  reasons  to  satisfy  their  minds 
on  the  point ;  but  in  regard  to  the  rest  of  these 
statutes,  they  cannot  assign  the  same  reasons  for 
the  prohibitions :  and,  therefore,  they  chose  to 
denominate  these  positive  law.  Is  this  reasona- 
ble? The  law,  we  have  seen,  is  one  law.  Ali 
its  prohibitions  rest  on  the  same  basis ;  all  have 
the  same  object  in  view ;  and  all  are  enforced  by 
the  same  spiritual  punishment.  Why  then  should 
a  part  of  this  one  and  the  same  law  be  regarded 
as  founded  in  nature,  and  another  part  be  con- 
sidered as  only  positive?  The  inability  of  jur- 
ists to  discover  by  the  deductions  of  their  own 
reason  the  whole  extent  of  the  law  of  nature,  is 
no  sufficient  reason  for  not  admitting  the  whole 
of  this  Levitical  law  to  be  a  natural  law,  found- 

*  Kent's  Com.,  vol.  ii.  p.  82. 

13* 


146  LEVITICAL    LAW 

ed  in  nature.  The  ignorance  of  uncultivated 
minds,  unable  to  determine  what  is  the  law  of 
nature,  and  what  is  not,  cannot  affect  the  char- 
acter of  {he  natural  law,  acknowledged  to  be 
such  by  the  common  consent  of  jurists  and 
legislators.  And  why  should  the  weakness  of 
the  human  mind  to  discover  the  whole  extent  of 
a  natural  law,  affect  the  natural  character  of 
this  one  Levitical  law  of  marriage  ;  when  it  is 
evident,  from  an  inspection  of  it,  that  the  whole 
rests  on  the  same  basis,  the  natural  relations 
which  rational  creatures  sustain  to  their  Creator 
and  to  one  another  ?  Can  not  His  omniscient 
eye  see  farther  than  the  human  eye?  Does  not 
the  Maker  of  all  things,  the  Architect  of  nature, 
know  perfectly  that  nature  which  He  created, 
and  all  the  relations  which  He  has  constituted 
between  his  rational  creatures'? 

Let  us  for  a  moment  look   at  the  particulars 
in  this  law.     It  prohibits  marriage  between 

1.  Parents  and  children  :  vs.  7,  8. 

2.  Brothers  and  sisters  :  v.  9. 

3.  A  man  and  his  grand-daughter  :   v.  10. 

4.  A  man  and  his  father's  wife's  daughter  : 
v.  11. 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  147 

5.  A  man  and  his  aunt,  either  his  father's  or 
his  mother's  sister:  vs.  12,  13. 

6.  A  man  and  his  uncle's  wife  :  v.  14. 

7.  A  man  and  his  daughter-in-law:  v.  15. 

8.  A  man  and  his  brother's  wife :  v.  16. 

9.  A  man  and  his  wife's  daughter  :  v.  17. 

10.  A  man  and  his  wife's  son's  daughter,  or 
her  daughter's  daughter  :  v.  17. 

11.  A  man  and  his  sister-in-law  :  v.  18. 
Why  should  the  prohibition  of  any  of  these 

marriages  be  regarded  as  not  belonging  to  natu- 
ral lawl?  Let  the  question  be  again  proposed, 
What  is  meant  by  the  law  of  nature  1  Chancel- 
lor Kent  has  well  answered  this  question.  In  his 
adjudication  of  the  case  of  Whitman  vs.  Whit- 
man, he  says,  "By  the  law  of  nature  I  under- 
stand those  fit  and  just  rules  of  conduct,  which 
the  Creator  has  prescribed  to  a  man,  as  a  de- 
pendent and  social  being ;  and  which  are  to  be 
ascertained  from  the  deductions  of  right  reason, 
though  they  may  be  more  precisely  known  and 
more  explicitly  declared  by  Divine  revelation."* 

*  Conflict  of  Laws,  p.  105,  a  note,  4  Johns.  Ch.  R.  p 
343. 


148  LEVITICAL    LAW 

This  definition  is  just.  It  involves  the  follow- 
ing points  : — 1.  The  law  of  nature  is  the  Crea- 
tor's law; — 2.  It  is  founded  on  relations; — 3. 
Human  reason  is  incompetent  to  discover  it  in 
its  full  extent ; — 4.  Divine  revelation  alone  can 
make  it  fully  known. 

The  law  of  nature  is  indeed  the  Creator's 
law  ;  and  rules  derived  from  the  consideration 
of  the  nature  of  things,  have  no  binding  autho- 
rity on  the  conscience,  except  so  far  as  they  in- 
dicate the  Divine  will.  They  bind  the  con- 
science anterior  to  human  legislation.  God  has 
not  left  the  law  of  incest  to  be  collected  from 
the  deductions  of  fallible  reason.  He  himself 
has  promulgated  it  at  different  periods,  so  that 
heathen  nations  have  learned  something  of  it  by 
tradition  ;  and  by  his  servant  Moses,  He  vouch- 
safed, in  writing,  to  his  chosen  people,  a  full 
revelation  of  His  will  on  this  interesting  subject. 
Why,  then,  should  any  reject  the  light  He  has 
shed  on  a  part  of  moral  duty,  so  important  to  be 
known  ?  We  needed  the  light  of  revelation  to 
ascertain  our  duty  fully.  God  has  given  this 
heavenly  light.  Let  us  thankfully  receive  the 
gift,  and  walk  in  the  light. 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  149 

Is  it  reasonable  to  deny  any  part  of  this  law 
to  be  founded  in  nature,  when  every  part  so 
manifestly  rests  upon  the  same  basis,  relation- 
ship by  consanguinity  and  affinity  ?  Why  assert 
a  part,  and  not  the  whole,  to  be  binding  on  us? 
Why  denominate  it  a  revelation  to  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth,  and  not  to  the  Church  ?  Why 
call  it  a  municipal,  and  not  an  ecclesiastical 
law? 

The  Puritan  has  assailed  particularly  that 
part  of  this  law  which  prohibits  the  marrying  of 
a  brother's  widow.  This  he  will  have  to  belong 
to  the  Jewish  civil  law,  and  to  have  been  re- 
pealed. He  however  has  offered  no  arguments 
in  favor  of  his  position.  It  is  merely  assumption. 

We  have  proved,  we  believe,  this  whole  Levit- 
ical  law  to  be  an  ecclesiastical,  moral,  and  natu- 
ral law,  unrepealed,  and  binding  on  all  Chris- 
tians. 

One  objection  remains  to  be  noticed.  On  p. 
9,  2d  par.,  the  Puritan  says,  "  Since  ever  after 
the  race  was  fully  constituted  for  multiplication, 
it  was  against  the  law  of  nature  for  brothers  and 
sisters  to  marry,  and  God  himself  could  not 
either  allow  or  command  it." 


150  LEVITICAL    LAW 

It  has  been  already  remarked,  that  our  bro- 
ther speaks  of  "  the  law  of  nature"  without  ex- 
plaining his  meaning.  But  what  is  this  law  of 
nature  but  the  law  of  God,  the  Author  of  nature? 
Distinct  from  the  Creator's  law  there  is  no  law 
of  nature.  Some  parts  of  the  laws  of  God  are 
mutable,  and  others  immutable.  The  Decalogue 
is  a  moral  and  natural  law ;  natural,  because  it 
is  founded  in  the  natural  relations  that  subsist 
between  us  and  the  Creator,  and  between  us 
and  our  fellow-creatures.  This  law  requires  us 
to  love  God ;  and  we  cannot  conceive  this  obli- 
gation should  ever  cease,  or  that  the  contrary 
should  ever  "  be  allowed  or  commanded."  We 
are  required  to  love  our  neighbor,  not  excepting 
our  enemies  ;  and  this  precept  involves  the  duty 
of  praying  for  them:  but  we  are  not  permitted 
to  pray  for  the  wicked  when  dead ;  we  must 
leave  them  in  the  hands  of  their  Judge,  who  will 
do  them  no  act  of  injustice.  Before  death  the 
obligation  to  pray  for  a  sinner  may  cease  :  "  If 
any  man  see  his  brother  sin  a  sin  which  is  not 
unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  shall  give  him 
life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto  death."  "  But," 
adds  the  inspired  writer,  "  There  is  a  sin  unto 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  151 

death :  I  do  not  say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it.'' 
1  John  5  :  16. 

So  it  is  with  the  law  of  marriage.  We  cannot 
conceive  of  a  case  in  which  k  could  be  lawful 
for   a  parent  to  marry  his  daughter.     But  we 
know  that,  at  the  commencement  of  the  human 
race,  it  was  lawful  for   brothers   and   sisters  to 
marry.      And  since  the  multiplication    of  the 
human   race,  affirms  our   brother,  "  God  could 
not  either  allow  or  command  it."     We  dislike 
this  language  ;  it  savors  of  irreverence.     Sup- 
pose Noah  and   his   wife  alone  had  been  saved 
from  the  destructive  deluge,  and  they  had  be- 
gotten children    after  the    flood,   would  it  not 
have    been   again  lawful  for  brothers    and  sis- 
ters to  marry  ?     Or  suppose  Noah,  during  the 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years  he  lived  after  the 
deluge,  had  begotten  children,  would  not  mar- 
riages between  uncles  and  nieces  have  been  al- 
lowed 1 

The  Puritan  goes  on,  in  the  same  paragraph 
to  affirm  :  "  And  we  repeat,  that  if  it  were  a 
moral  wrong  for  one  to  marry  his  brother's  wid- 
ow, God  could  not  have  commanded  it  as  he 


152  LEV1TICAL    LAW 

did."  What  is  a  moral  wrong?  Is  it  not  sin? 
And  what  is  sin?  An  inspired  writer  has  an- 
swered the  question  :  "  Sin  is  a  trangression 
of  the  law,"  Did  not  the  Israelites,  when,  in 
opposition  to  a  Divine  command,  they  refused 
to  march  forward  and  take  possession  of  the 
promised  land,  and  when  they  threatened  to 
stone  Joshua  and  Caleb  who  exhorted  them  to 
go  forward,  sin?  Did  they  not  commit  a  "  mo- 
ral wrong?"  And  when  God,  to  punish  them 
for  their  disobedience,  reversed  his  command, 
and  swore  they  should  perish  in  the  wilderness, 
did  they  not  sin  again — again  commit  a  "  moral 
wrong"  by  attempting  to  march  forward  in 
opposition  to  His  will  ?  See  Num.  xiii.  and 
xiv. 

The  Puritan  has  failed  in  his  attempt  to 
prove,  the  prohibition  to  "  uncover  the  naked- 
ness of  a  brother's  wife,"  does  not  involve  a 
prohibition  to  marry  a  brother's  widow.  We 
have  shown  that  the  Levitical  law  relates  to 
marriage,  as  well  as  to  single  incestuous  acts  ; 
and  it  follows,  that  in  all  cases,  except  one,  if  a 
Jew  married  the  widow  of  his  brother,  he  sin- 


A    NATURAL    LAW.  153 

ned,  he  committed  a  "  moral  wrong ;"  because 
he  violated  a  command  of  God.  There  is  now. 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  no  exception 
to  this  prohibition*.  This  ecclesiastical  law  of 
marriage,  of  permanent  obligation,  prohibits 
every  one  who  hears  it,  marrying  his  brother's 
widow ;  and  whoever  does  form  such  a  connex- 
ion sins,  he  commits  "  a  moral  icrong." 

Our  brother,  holding  fast  to  his  error,  and 
confident  of  being  right,  boldly  affirms,  in  the 
fifth  paragraph,  "  So  that,  after  all  the  objections 
that  have  been  urged,  the  argument  remains  in 
all  its  force,  that  the  marriage  of  a  brother's 
widow  is  not  an  immorality  per  se ;  for  if  it  had 
been,  God  could  not,  in  any  case,  have  com- 
manded it."  By  "  an  immorality  per  se,"  our 
brother  means  an  act  which,  in  no  possible  cir- 
cumstances, it  would  become  a  holy  God  to  al- 
low. We  cordially  agree  with  him  that  the 
marriage  of  a  brother's  widow  is  not  such  an 
act.  Nor  is  the  marriage  of  brothers  and  sis- 
ters such  an  act ;  for  this  plain  reason,  there 
have  been  circumstances  in  which  God  did  per- 
mit and  require  such  marriages.  Still,  however, 
as  it  is  now  unlawful  for  brothers  and  sisters,  in 

14 


154  LEVITICAL    LAW. 

any  case,  to  marry,  so  it  is  now  unlawful  for  a 
man,  in  any  case,  to  marry  his  brother's  widow. 
Both  are  forbidden  by  the  law  of  God,  given  to 
His  Church,  which  law  is  really  a  moral  and  a 

NATURAL  law. 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ARGUMENT.  155 


CHAPTER   IX. 

Summary  view  of  the  Argument. 

It  is  now  time  to  present  the  reader  with  a 
summary  of  the  whole  discussion. 

After  an  introduction  designed  to  trace  the 
rise  of  the  present  debate,  we  entered  on  the 
subject,  by  making  various  remarks  on  the 
Puritan's  historical  facts. 

In  the  first  and  second  chapters  we  detected 
many  mistakes  and  misstatements  of  our  bro- 
ther ;  showed  how  he  has  misrepresented  Jeremy 
Taylor,  and  greatly  erred  in  regard  to  the  views 
of  the  Protestant  Church  of  Europe;  and  that 
he  has  no  right  to  claim  Calvin,  or  Grotius,  or 
Selden,  as  favoring  the  marriage  of  a  man  with 
his  deceased  wife's  sister. 

His  attempt  to  ascribe  a  papal  origin  to  the 
prohibition  of  such  marriages,   was   frustrated. 


156  SUMMARY    OF 

It  was  also  seen  there  is  more  reason  to  appre- 
hend the  change  that  has  occurred  in  the  views 
and  laws  of  various  States  on  this  subject,  may 
be  traced  to  the  influence  of  infidelity  ;  and  that 
it  dees  not  augur  well,  that,  in  this  retrograde 
movement,  the  State  has  taken  the  lead,  and 
wishes  to  draw  after  it  the  Church  of  God, 
which,  in  former  times,  very  properly  influenced 
and  instructed  the  State. 

In  our  third  chapter,  the  consequences  that 
must  result  from  the  principles  the  Puritan  has 
endeavored  to  establish,  were  exhibited.  If  the 
law  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus  has 
been  repealed  and  is  not  binding  on  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  especially  if  it  have  no  refer- 
ence at  all  to  marriage;  then  it  follows,  as  a 
necessary  consequence,  that  the  Church,  in 
every  age,  since  the  days  of  Moses,  has  been 
destitute  of  a  written  rule  on  the  subject  of  un- 
lawful marriages,  and  left  entirely  to  the  single 
intimation  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  and 
the  unaided  light  of  human  reason.  This  we 
believe  to  be  highly  improbable :  and  consider- 
ing how  clearly  God  has  announced  the  Deca- 
logue, the  moral  law,  first  engraven  on  tables  of 


THE    ARGUMENT.  157 

stone,  and  then  recorded  by  the  pen  of  Moses ; 
how  it  was  afterwards  explained  by  the  writings 
of  the  Prophets,  by  the  teaching  of  the  Redeem- 
er, and  in  the  writings  of  inspired  Apostles  ;  and 
considering  also  what  particular  instructions  are 
given  in  regard  to  the  Divine  ordinance  6T  hu- 
man government ;  we  felt  it  to  be  reasonable  to 
infer  from  what  God  had  done  for  our  benefit  in 
these  matters,  He  had  not  withheld  from  us  a 
written  announcement  of  His  will  on  a  point  re- 
lating to  His  own  peculiar  institution,  which 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  human  society ;  an  an- 
nouncement so  necessary  to  protect  this  institu- 
tion against  abuse,  and  to  secure  domestic  puri- 
ty, as  well  as  to  preserve  good  morals  in  the 
community. 

The  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  chapters  are  de- 
voted to  the  proof  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Levit- 
ical  law. 

In  establishing  this  point,  beside  offering  di- 
rect proof,  we  reasoned  on  the  Puritan's  own 
principles.  He  assumes,  without  proof,  that  this 
law  belongs  to  the  Jewish  civil  or  judicial  code  ; 
and  then  admitting  that  some  parts  of  this  code 
are  binding  on  Christians,  he  applies  to  this  law 

14* 


158  SUMMARY    OF 

the  criteria  laid  down  by  Turrcttin,  to  ascertain 
what  portions  of  the  Jewish  civil  code  are,  and 
what  are  not,  binding  on  us ;  and  by  the  appli- 
cation of  these  criteria,  he  thinks  he  has  proved 
the  Levitical  law,  in  the  eighteenth  chapter,  to 
have  been  repealed,  and  thus  deprived  of  its 
binding  authority.  But,  in  opposition  to  our 
brother,  we  have  endeavored  to  show,  that  he 
has  not  followed  his  guide,  and  that,  by  a  cor- 
rect application  of  Tar  renin*  s  criteria,  these 
Levitical  statutes  are  proved  to  be  permanent 
and  obligatory  on  the  Christian  Church. 

It  was  also  shown  that  this  law  is  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  not  municipal,  and  has  not  been  repeal- 
ed ;  and  that,  even  admitting  it  does  not  relate 
to  marriage,  it  must  be  unrepealed;  because, 
according  to  the  Puritan's  own  showing,  it  for- 
bids lewd,  unclean  "  acts  of  an  incestuous  char- 
acter," and  is,  therefore,  a  natural  and???oroZlaw. 

In  the  seventh  chapter,  which  contains  re- 
marks on  the  Puritan's  reasoning  and  exposure 
of  its  fallacy,  we  have,  among  other  things,  en- 
deavored, from  the  uniform  judgment  of  the 
Church,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  to  prove 
that  this  Levitical  law  relates  to  marriage. 


THE    ARGUMENT.  159 

We  have  also  attempted  to  prove,  in  opposi- 
tion to  all  the  needless  labor  of  our  brother  to 
establish  what  he  deems  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  "  uncover  nakedness,"  that  it  does  mean 
sexual  intercourse  ;  that  this  intercourse  receives 
its  character  from  circumstances,  and  is,  accord- 
ing to  circumstances,  virtuous  or  vicious,  honor- 
able  or  disgraceful ;  and  that,  in  this  very  chap- 
ter of  Leviticus,  it  is,  in  one  place,  applied  to 
the  commerce  of  married  persons. 

In  regard  to  the  term  wife,  on  which  the 
Puritan  lays  so  much  stress,  it  has  been  evinced 
that  it  does,  in  this  chapter,  mean  more  than 
wife,  in  the  ordinary  signification  of  the  term ; 
because  the  prohibition  of  sexual  intercourse  be- 
tween a  son  and  his  mother,  a  man  and  his  father's 
wife,  a  man  and  his  aunt,  is  permanent;  apply- 
ing not  only  to  the  lifetime  of  the  husband,  but 
to  the  time  subsequent  to  his  death,  when  his 
wife  has  become  a  widoiv. 

In  the  eighth  chapter,  this  Levitical  law  is 
proved  to  be  one  natural\a\v  ;  being  founded  in 
nature,  as  it  has  for  its  basis  the  natural  rela- 
tions subsisting  between  man  and  his  Creator,  and 
between  man  andhis  fellow-creatures;  and  that 


160  SUMMARY    OF   THE    ARGUMENT. 

no  prohibition  in  this  law  is  to  be  excepted,  be- 
cause all  are  founded  on  the  same  common  basis. 
Through  all  this  extended  discussion  it  was 
necessary  to  pass,  in  order  to  prepare  the  way 
for  proving  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  de- 
ceased wife's  sister  to  be  unlawful  and  incestu- 
ous. Had  our  brother  not  denied  the  true  de- 
sign and  perpetuity  of  the  Levitical  law,  but 
admitted  it  as  prescribing  limits  to  marriage, 
and  permanent  in  its  obligation,  we  might,  with- 
out all  this  previous  labor,  have  entered  imme- 
diately on  the  proof  that  such  marriages  are 
prohibited  by  these  Levitical  statutes. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  161 


CHAPTER    X. 

Marriage  unlawful. — Rules  of  interpretation — proved  to  be  correct. — 
Objections  of  Omicron  and  the  Puritan  answered. — Eight  rela- 
tions by   affinity. 

Omitting  for  the  present  the  prohibition  of 
this  marriage  found  in  the  eighteenth  verse  of 
the  chapter,  we  contend,  that  by  a  fair  and  just 
construction  of  the  Levitical  law,  it  is  forbidden. 
To  prove  this,  the  following  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion are  laid  down  as  correct  and  true. 

I.  This  law  is  to  be  interpreted  in  conformity 
with  its  general  and  permanent  character. 

Had  it  been  delivered  as  a  temporary  and 
civil  law,  designed  only  for  the  government  of 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  it  ought  to  receive 
a  corresponding  interpretation.  But  as  it  is  a 
permanent,  ecclesiastical  law,  designed  for  the 
Church  in  all  ages,  it  must  be  interpreted  ac- 
cordingly. 


162  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

II.  This  law  settles  the  degrees  of  marriage ; 
without  specifying  all  the  particular  cases  which 
come  within  the  compass  of  these  degrees. 

This,  with  few  exceptions,  has  been  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church  in  every  age.  So  thought 
the  Jews.  "  The  Jews,"  says  Poole,  "  and  even 
the  Karaites,  (who  followed  most  rigidly  the 
letter  of  the  Scriptures,)  admitted  it  to  be  cor- 
rect to  ascertain  the  cases  not  specified,  by  just 
reasoning."*  If  this  rule  were  not  allowed, 
neither  marriage  with  a  sister  from  the  same 
father  and  mother,  nor  marriage  with  the  wife 
of  a  mother's  brother,  nor  marriage  with  a  sis- 
ter's daughter,  could  be  proved  to  be  unlawful ; 
for  neither  of  these  cases  are  specified  in  the 
law.  See  vs.  9,  10,  11,  14.  In  this  the  law  re- 
sembles the  Decalogue  ;  which  lays  down  gene- 
ral principles  to  be  applied  to  cases  as  they  may 
arise.  Had  all  the  cases  been  specified,  the  law 
would  have  been  unnecessarily  prolix. 

III.  This  law  is  addressed  to  women,  as  well 
as  to  men. 

This  rule  is  not  regarded  either  by  the  Puri- 

*  Synopsis  Crit.  vol.  I.     Levit.  18  :  16. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  163 

tan,  or  by  Omicron.  They  seem  to  think  the 
law  speaks  only  to  men.  A  serious  error  that 
runs  counter  to  the  whole  analogy  of  Scripture. 
All  general  laws  are  alike  addressed  to  both 
sexes.  "The  Rabbins  say,  that  whatsoever  is 
forbid  to  men,  in  the  negative  precepts  of  the 
law,  is  also  forbid  to  women."  See  Calmet's 
Diet,  under  Woman.  Wild  as  they  were  in  other 
matters,  they  were  correct  in  this. 

The  first  prohibition  given  to  man,  as  a  test 
of  his  obedience,  seems  to  have  been  delivered 
to  Adam  before  Eve  was  made — (Gen.  2 :  15- 
22 ;)  yet  our  common  mother  knew  it  was  im- 
posed on  her,  as  well  as  on  her  husband.  (Gen. 
3  :  1-3.)  The  Decalogue  was  addressed  to  men, 
just  as  this  marriage  law  is ;  but  who  doubts  it 
was  addressed  also  to  women  ?  In  the  tenth 
commandment  the  Lawgiver  says  to  man, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife ;"  and 
does  He  not,  at  the  same  time,  say  to  woman, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  husband  V1 

But  Omicron  objects,  "  The  Hebrew  wife 
was,  in  fact,  comparatively  little  more  than  the 
husband's  slave,  whom  he  might  dismiss  at  plea- 
sure."— "  It  follows,  from  these  considerations, 


164  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

that  the  Mosaic  laws  relative  to  marriage  and 
the  sexes,  such  as  those  in  Levit.  18 :  6-18, 
(however  we  might  understand  them,  if  now  first 
given  to  us  in  the  present  state  of  society,)  were 
addressed  only  to  Hebrew  men.  They  could 
not  have  been  intelligible  as  addressed  to  He- 
brew women  ;  because  they  had  no  voice  or  lot 
in  carrying  them  into  execution;  but  were  them- 
selves merely  passive  in  the  arrangements  be- 
tween one  family  and  another."  (P.  27,  par.  3, 
5,  Appendix.) 

In  reply  the  following  remarks  are  offered : 
1.  The  inquiry  before  us  is,  What  is  the  duty  of 
Christian  men  and  women  ?  If  "  the  Hebrew 
wife  was  little  more  than  the  husband's  slave," 
a  Christian  wife  is  not  the  slave  of  her  husband, 
nor  can  he  dismiss  her  at  pleasure.  The  law  is 
intelligible  to  a  Christian  woman.  What  is  her 
duty  ?  Is  she  not  bound  to  obey  the  marriage 
law?  If  a  man  be  so  wicked  as  to  propose  to 
marry  his  sister,  can  she  consent  without  sin? 
Or  if  a  man  propose  to  contract  any  marriage 
within  the  Levitical  degrees,  can  the  female  ac- 
cept  his  proposals,  and  be  free  from  guilt  ? 

2.  Why  could  not  Hebrew  women  understand 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  165 

the  law?  Were  they  so  stupid  as  to  be  incapa- 
ble of  instruction  ?  Were  not  the  precepts  that 
prohibited  a  son  to  marry  his  mother,  or  a  bro- 
ther to  marry  his  sister,  as  intelligible  to  Hebrew 
women  as  the  precepts  in  the  Decalogue, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  and  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife  ?" 

3.  The  Hebrew  women  were  not  passive  in 
marriage.  They  had  a  voice  in  forming  this 
interesting  contract.    Rebecca  was  consulted  in 

© 

regard  to  her  marriage  with  Isaac.    This  indeed 

©  © 

occurred  before  the  giving  of  the  Mosaic  law; 
but  it  indicates  the  custom  among  the  ancient 
Hebrews.  Ruth  certainly  was  not  passive  in 
forming  a  matrimonial  connexion  with  Boaz. 
She  took  decisive  measures  for  effecting  it.  See 
Ruth,  chap.  3.  The  childless  widow  was  autho- 
rized by  law  to  require  her  husband's  brother  to 
marry  her,  and  to  treat  him  with  great  indignity 
if  he  refused.  (Deut.  25  :  5-10.)  A  daughter 
betrothed  by  her  parents,  was  allowed,  when  she 
came  of  age,  the  privilege  of  refusing  to  con- 
summate the  marriage  with  the  man  selected, 
and  afterwards  forming-  a  matrimonial  connexion 

© 

with  any  one  she  might  choose.     See  the  form 
15 


166  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

of  renunciation  in  Selden's  Uxor  Ebr.  Lib  ii., 
chap.  3. 

4.  "  A  Hebrew  wife  was,  in  fact,  compara- 
tively little  more  than  the  husband's  slave  I"  So 
says  Omicron  ;  and  the  Puritan  makes  the  same 
assertion.  (P.  7,  at  the  bottom.)  What  proof 
is  offered?  None  by  either  writer,  except  the 
law  of  divorce.  This  we  shall  examine  presently. 
In  the  meantime  we  deny  the  fact.  In  Christian 
lands  some  wives  are  treated  by  their  husbands 
worse  than  slaves.  But  such  cruel  treatment  is 
not  authorized  by  the  Divine  law ;  nor  does  it 
affect  the  relation  of  women  to  its  binding  au- 
thority. Did  Abraham,  or  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  treat 
their  wives  little  better  than  slaves  ?  Did  Moses 
and  Aaron  act  thus  towards  their  wives  1  Did 
Elkanah  treat- his  wives  as  slaves  ?  (1  Sam.  1 : 
4-8.)     Did  King  David  so  treat  his  wives  ? 

The  Hebrews  did,  it  is  allowed,  in  corrupt 
periods,  act  toward  their  wives  with  great  cruel- 
ty. But  such  conduct  was  unauthorized  by  their 
laws.  It  was  acting  in  opposition  to  the  origi- 
nal design  of  the  marriage  institution.  Woman 
was  formed  by  the  Creator  to  be  "  a  help-meet " 
for  man.    (Gen.  2  :  18.)    It  was  always  His  will 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  167 

that  wives  should  be  the  companions  of  their 
husbands,  (Deut.  24  :  5  ;)  and  the  bill  of  divorce- 
ment which  the  law  directed  to  be  given  to  a 
woman,  when  put  away  by  her  husband,  was 
allowed  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  men's 
hearts. 

5.  Nor  were  the  Hebrews  authorized  to  put 
away  their  wives  "  at  pleasure."  Restraints 
were  laid  on  them.  Some  wives  they  were  for- 
bidden to  divorce.  See  Deut.  22  :  13-19,  28, 
29.  The  text  referred  to  by  Omicron  (Deut. 
25:  1)  is  altogether  insufficient  to  sustain  his 
sweeping  assertion,  that  a  "  Hebrew  husband 
might  divorce  his  wrife  at  any  time,  on  slight 
grounds,"  and  "  at  pleasure."  (P.  27.)  The 
"  uncleanness  "  referred  to  in  the  text,  was  in  the 
judgment  of  Scott,  something  that  formed  "  a 
real  grievance."  Commentators,  however,  are 
divided  in  their  opinions  ;*  and  so  were  the  two 
famous  Jewish  schools  in  our  Saviour's  time.f 

The  lax  interpretation  should  not  be  admitted 
for  the  following  reasons  : — 1.  The  condemna- 
tion of  it  by  our  Great  Teacher,  when  the  Phar- 

*  Poole  on  Deut.  25  : 1. 
t  Clarke  on  Matt.  19  :  13. 


163  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

isees  put  to  him  this  question  :  "  Is  it  lawful  for 
a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause?" 
See  Matt.  19 :  3-9.  2.  The  pungent  rebuke 
of  the  licentious  conduct  of  the  Jews,  by  Mala- 
chi,  God's  last  prophet  under  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Jews  had  divorced  their  wives,  and  mar- 
ried other  women ;  so  that  the  altar  of  the  Lord 
was  covered  "  with  tears,  with  weeping,  and  with 
crying  out,  insomuch  that  He  regarded  not  the 
offering."  "  Yet  ye  say,  Wherefore  1  Because 
the  Lord  hath  been  witness  between  thee  and 
the  wife  of  thy  youth,  against  whom  thou  hast 
dealt  treacherously  :  yet  she  is  thy  companion, 
and  the  wife  of  thy  covenant.  And  did  he  not 
make  one?  Yet  had  he  the  residue  of  the 
spirit.  And  wherefore  one  ?  That  he  might 
seek  a  godly  seed.  Therefore  take  heed  to  your 
spirit,  and  let  none  deal  treacherously  against 
the  wife  of  his  youth.  For  the  Lord,  the  God 
of  Israel  saith,  that  he  hateth  putting  away." 

Compare  this  scripture  with  the  above  quota- 
tion. O micron  says,  "  The  Hebrew  wife  was 
little  better  than  her  husband's  slave  V  God  says 
she  is  his  "  companion,  and  the  wife  of  his  cove- 
nant."    Omicron  says,  The  husband  could  dis- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  169 

miss  his  wife  "  at  pleasure ;"  God  says,  "  He 
hateth  putting  away"  and  warns  the  husband 
not  to  "  deal  treacherously  against  the  wife  of 
his  youth."  Now,  was  the  Hebrew  wife,  whom 
God  denominates  the  companion  of  her  husband, 
and  whom  He  condescends  thus  to  protect  in 
the  enjoyment  of  her  rights,  little  better  than 
his  slave?  If  a  wicked  man  treated  her  so,  it 
was  in  opposition  to  Jehovah's  known  will. 

6.  That  this  Levitical  law  was  addressed  to 
Hebrew  women,  as  well  as  to  men,  is  plain  from 
the  twentieth  chapter,  which  denounces  the  civil 
penalty  equally  against  both  sexes.  See  vs.  11, 
12,  14,  17,  20,  21.  If  the  law  was  not  address- 
ed to  women,  they  were  guiltless,  and  were  not 
deserving  of  punishment.  But,  as  they  were  to 
be  punished  for  its  violations,  it  is  evident  they 
were  considered  as  guilty  ;  and  it  follows  that 
the  law  was  addressed  to  them:  for  Paul  says, 
"Where  no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression." 
And  again,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is 
no  law."     Rom.  4  :  15,  and  5  :  13. 

7.  The  last  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this 
rule  which  we  offer  is,  the  interpretation 
which  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Uzziel,  has  given  of 

15* 


170  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

the  seventh  verse  of  this  chapter.  "  He  was," 
says  Adam  Clarke,  in  his  Succession  of  Sacred 
Literature,  (p.  50,)  "  brought  up  in  the  celebra- 
ted school  of  Rabbi  Hillel,  grandfather  to  Ga- 
maliel, at  whose  feet  St.  Paul  was  brought  up. 
Hillel  died  about  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  birth  ; 
and  Jonathan,  who  was  the  most  famous  of  all  his 
scholars,  and  equalled  by  the  Jewish  Rabbins  to 
Moses  himself,  continued  to  flourish  a  long  time 
after."  This  famous  Jewish  Rabbi  regarded  the 
seventh  verse  as  addressed  directly  to  the  woman, 
as  well  as  to  the  man.  His  interpretation  is  this  : 
"  Turpitudinem  patris.  tui  et  turpitudinem  ma- 
tris  tuae  non  contemnes  :  mulier  non  rem  habebit 
cum  patre  suo,  et  vir  non  coibit  cum  matre  sua; 
mater  tua  est,  non  revelabis  turpitudinem  ejus.* 

Compare  this  with  Omicro?i's  assertion,  (p. 
27,  5th  par.,)  "  that  the  Mosaic  law  relative  to 
marriage  and  the  sexes,  such  as  those  in  Levit. 
18 :  6-18,  (however  we  might  understand  them, 
if  now  first  given  to  us  in  the  present  state  of 
society,)  were  addressed  only  to  Hebrew  men." 
How  opposite  to  the  views  of  this  famous  Jew- 
ish Rabbi ! 

*  See  his  Targum  in  the  London  Polyglott. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  171 

Let  us  now  exemplify  the  operation  of  this 
rule. 

Does  the  law  say  to  man,  "Thou  sh alt  not 
uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  mother  V1  (V.  7.) 
It  says  to  woman,  Thou  shalt  not  cohabit  with 
thy  father. 

Does  the  law  say  to  man,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  father's  sister?" 
(V.  12.)  It  says  to  woman,  Thou  shalt  not  co- 
habit with  thy  father's  brother. 

Does  the  law  say  to  man,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
uncover  thy  father's  brother's  wife?"  (V.  14.) 
It  says  to  woman,  Thou  shalt  not  cohabit  with 
thy  mother's  sister's  husband. 

Thus  this  marriage  law  accords  with  the  mo- 
ral law  :  for  when  the  Decalogue  says  to  man, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife  ;"  it 
says  to  woman,  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
bor's husband. 

IV.  In  interpreting  the  marriage  laiv,  we  are 
to  avail  ourselves  of  the  light  of  Christianity. 

This  seems  so  plain  as  to  need  no  proof.  But 
what  says  Omicron  1  "  Some  minds  are  doubt- 
less led  to  look  at  the  subject  in  a  wrong  light, 
by  making  no  distinction  between  the  relative 


172  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

position  of  man  and  woman,  husband  and  wife,  in 
our  day,  and  their  relative  position  under  the 
Hebrew  commonwealth.  Because  the  two  sexes 
stand  on  an  equal  footing  in  the  eye  of  the  law 
and  in  general  usage,  it  is  natural,  though  not 
correct,  to  regard  them  as  having  stood  on  the 
same  ground  in  respect  to  Hebrew  law  and  cus- 
tom."    (P.  26,  Appendix.) 

Is  this  in  point  ?  Had  Omicron  been  called 
upon  to  frame  an  excuse  for  the  conduct  of  the 
Jews  in  violating  their  law,  this  might  be  intro- 
duced with  some  plausibility.  But,  in  debating 
the  question,  "Whether  it  is  now  lawful  for  a 
Christian  man,  living  under  the  light  of  the  new 
dispensation,  to  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sis- 
ter, what  has  it  to  do  with  the  question  ?  Are 
we  to  shut  our  eyes  against  the  light  of  Christi- 
anity, and  placing  ourselves  under  the  obscurity 
of  the  old  dispensation,  and  viewing  ourselves 
as  citizens  of  "the  Hebrew  commonwealth,"  to 
interpret  the  law  as  a  civil  or  judicial  law,  and 
thus  ascertain  our  duty  1  Are  we  to  look  at  this 
subject  with  Jewish,  and  not  with  Christian 
eyes  ?  How  unreasonable !  The  law  laid  down 
in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  is  a  law, 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  173 

not  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  but  of  the 
Church  of  God  in  all  ages.  We  are  Christians; 
we  live  under  the  glorious  light  of  the  gospel; 
Jesus  Christ  has  explained  to  us  the  law  of  mar- 
riage ;  He  prohibits  divorce,  except  for  one 
cause :  all  this  we  are  to  remember,  and  to  inter- 
pret the  law  in  all  the  light  which  Christianity 
sheds  upon  it  for  ourselves. 

But  says  Omicron,  (p.  27,)  "  With  us,  in- 
deed, this  question  assumes  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent shape,  in  consequence  of  our  Saviour's  pro- 
hibition of  divorce.  Matt.  5:  31,  19:  6.  But 
t  this,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  unknown  to 
the  ancient  Hebrews."  The  declaration  which 
God  made  by  Malachi,  "  that  he  hateth  putting 
away,"  was  also  unknown  to  the  ancient  Hebrews; 
but  were  the  later  Jews,  who  knew  it,  to  pay  no 
regard  to  it,  in  their  interpretation  of  the  law  of 
divorce  1  Or  are  we,  who  not  only  know  this, 
but  what  our  Saviour  has  said  of  divorce  and 
polygamy,  and  who  enjoy  the  light  which  our 
Redeemer  has  shed  upon  all  laws,  not  to  avail 
ourselves  of  the  light  imparted  to  us  in  interpret- 
ing the  law  of  incest  and  of  marriage?  What 
inexcusable  ingratitude  would  this  be !     If  the 


174  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

ancient  Hebrews  erred  for  want  of  light,  we 
cannot  plead  the  same  excuse.  We  have  ample 
light ;  let  us  walk  in  the  light. 

V.  Affinity  is  as  permanent  as  consan- 
guinity. 

^This  is  denied  both  by  Omicron,  (p.  27,)  and 
by  the  Puritan,  (p.  9.)  "  The  Hebrew,"  says 
the  former,  "  at  least  would  hardly  have  thought 
so,  judging  from  the  customs  of  his  country, 
and  from  the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  law  in 
respect  to  inheritance  and  other  like  matters. 
Yet  so  thouo-ht  Maimonides,  that  learned  and 
celebrated  Hebrew  scholar.  '  Conjunctiones 
hie  ceque  prohibentur  cum  propinquis  affmitate 
et  nuptiis  atque  cum  propinquis  sanguine, 
teste  etiam  Maimonide.'* 

"  Even  Maimonides  testifies,  that  conjunctions 
with  relations  by  affinity  and  marriage,  are  as 
much  prohibited  as  with  relations  by  blood." 

The  death  of  a  wife  does  not,  as  the  Puritan 
supposes,  (p.  9,)  affect  the  affinity  of  her  hus- 
band to  her  surviving  kindred.  Her  mother  is 
still  his  mother-in-law ;  her  brothers  and  sisters 

*  Poole  Synop.  Lev.  18  :  14. 


UNLAWFUL   MARRIAGE.  175 

are  his  brothers  and  sisters ;  and  they  are  still 
the  uncles  and  aunts  of  his  children.  Were 
it  otherwise,  were  the  affinity  established  by 
marriage  dissolved  by  the  death  of  a  wife,  there 
would  exist,  on  the  ground  of  relationship,  no 
bar  to  his  marriage  with  her  daughter,  or  with 
her  mother  ;  but  the  first  is  expressly  forbidden, 
(Levit.  18:  17;)  and  the  second  was  declared 
to  be  wicked  and  punishable  with  death.  See 
Levit.  20  :  14. 

If  the  Jews,  by  abusing  the  law  of  divorce, 
repudiated  their  wives  frequently  and  for  trifling 
causes,  or,  contrary  to  the  original  design  of  mar- 
riage, multiplied  their  wives,  their  unwise  and  sin- 
ful practices  did  not  change  the  prohibitions  of 
the  Levitical  law,  nor  alter  the  affinity  created  by 
marriage.  The  perplexities  that  may  have  arisen 
from  their  folly  in  interpreting  the  law  in  re- 
gard to  themselves,  are  not  to  be  brought  for- 
ward to  obscure  its  obvious  meaning  in  applica- 
tion to  Christians,  to  whom  polygamy  has  been 
plainly  interdicted,  and  who  are  permitted  to 
divorce  their  wives  for  one  cause  only.  The 
true  question  is,  What  does  the  law  say  to  us  ? 
not  What  does  it  say  to  the  ancient  Hebrews  ? 


l?f)  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

In  confirmation  of  his  reasoning,  Omicrorl 
says,  just  before  the  preceding  quotation,  "  As 
a  Hebrew,  I  might  take  a  wife  to-day,  and  di- 
vorce her  to-morrow.  I  might  take  a  second, 
and  a  third,  yea,  even  a  twentieth  wife,  and  di- 
vorce them  all."  And  does  he  really  believe 
he  could  act  in  this  licentious  manner,  under  the 
sanction  of  a  divine  law?  Does  he  believe  he 
might,  under  a  divine  sanction,  dismiss  a  wife 
for  every  trifle,  and,  to  gratify  his  lusts,  dismiss 
twenty  wives  1 

Omicron  goes  on  to  inquire,  "  Am  I  to  un- 
derstand, that  affinity  arising  from  these  preca- 
rious and  transient  connexions,  was  a  bond  as 
close,  and  valid,  and  permanent,  as  the  ties  of 
blood?  and  that  the  Hebrew  was  as  strongly 
bound  to  all  the  various  relatives  of  his  twenty 
wives,  as  he  was  to  his  own  blood-kindred  of  the 
like  degree  V  These  are  questions  that  might 
be  asked  by  a  Hebrew,  who,  to  gratify  his  law- 
less passions,  had  divorced  twenty  wives,  and 
then  found  himself  involved  in  a  maze  of  difficul- 
ties ;  but  surely  they  do  not  become  a  Christian 
divine,  who  is  discussing  the  duty,  not  of  Jews, 
but  of  Christians. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE,  17? 

The  God  of  Israel  had  forbidden  the  king  to 
"multiply  wives  to  himself,"  (Deut.  17:17,) 
and  prohibited  to  all  Israel  to  form  matrimonial 
alliances  with  other  nations,  (1  Kings  11:  2;)  yet 
Solomon  had  seven  hundred  wives,  and  three  hun- 
dred concubines,  (v.  3;)  and  among  them  were 
"  many  strange  women,  together  with  the  daugh- 
ter of  Pharaoh,  women  of  the  Moabites,  Ammon- 
ites, Edomites,  Zidonians,  and  Hittites."  (V. 
1.)  The  mournful  consequences  of  such  viola- 
tions of  the  Divine  law,  are  recorded  in  sacred 
history.  See  1  Kings  11.  Why  did  not  O mi- 
cron brinor  forward  this  strong  case  of  this  licen- 
tious  king  of  Israel,  who  had,  besides  three 
hundred  concubines,  thirty-Jive  times  twenty 
wives,  and  then  triumphantly  propose  his  ques- 
tions about  affinity  ! 

The  number  of  relations  by  affinity  with 
whom  we  may  not  cohabit,  specified  in  the  law, 
are  the  following : 

1.  Step-mother,  v.  8. 

2.  Father's  brother's  wife,  v.  14, 

3.  Daughter-in-law,  v.  15. 

4.  Brother's  wife,  v.  16. 

5.  Wife's  daughter,  v.  17. 

16 


178  Ux\L  AWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

6.  Her  son's  daughter,  v.  17. 

7.  Her  daughter's  daughter,    v.  17. 

8.  Wife's  sister,  v.  18. 

All  these  are  obviously  relations  by  affinity ; 
and  they  are  as  numerous  as  the  relations  by 
consanguinity,  specified  in  the  law :  so  that  it  is 
very  evident,  from  the  explanation  given  by  the 
Lawgiver  himself  of  the  general  rule  laid  down 
in  the  sixth  verse,  that  near  of  kin  compre- 
hends affinity  as  well  as  consanguinity.* 

*  The  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts  has,  by  a  re- 
cent decision,  reversed  that  of  an  inferior  court  which 
had  pronounced  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his  deceased 
wife's  daughter  to  be  incestuous,  on  the  ground  that, 
by  the  death  of  his  wife,  the  affinity  between  him  and 
his  wife' s  daughter  entirely  ceased  ;  and  therefore  he 
could  lawfully  marry  his  step-daughter.  So  state  the 
public  papers. 

Such  is  the  decision  of  a  Supreme  Court  in  the  land 
of  steady  habits — in  the  land  of  the  descendants  of  the 
Puritans!  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Puritan.  See 
p.  9,  paragraph  next  to  the  last.  He  will  hail  it  as  an- 
other advance  of  the  public  mind  towards  the  truth  ! 

Let  us  look  at  the  consequences  of  this  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court. 

If  the  death  of  a  wife  dissolve  the  affinity  between 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  179 

her  husband  and  her  daughter,  it  must  dissolve  the  af- 
finity between  him  and  all  her  kindred.  What  follows? 

1.  A  man  marries  a  woman  ;  and  by  his  marriage  he 
sustains  affinity  to  all  her  kindred.  Her  mother  be- 
comes his  mother-in-law ;  her  father  his  father-in-law  ; 
her  sons  and  daughters  his  step-sons  and  step-daugh- 
ters ;  her  uncles  and  aunts  his  uncles  and  aunts.  She 
dies;  and,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  all  these  relations,  which  had  subsisted  till  the 
moment  of  her  last  breath,  cease.  The  husband  sur- 
vives, and  her  blood  kindred  survive  ;  but  the  relation 
which  bound  them  together  has  vanished  with  her 
breath.  Her  mother  and  father  were  his  mother  and 
father-in-law,  but  they  are  so  no  longer.  Her  brothers 
and  sisters  were  his  brothers  and  sisters-in-law,  but 
they  are  so  no  longer.  Her  sons  and  daughters  were 
his  step-sons  and  daughters,  but  they  are  so  no  longer. 
These  endearing  ties  may  have  subsisted  long,  and 
strengthened  with  revolving  years;  but  by  her  death, 
they  have  all  been  dissolved  in  a  moment,  and  all  these 
survivors  are  sundered  apart,  as  if  they  had  never  been 
united.     How  revolting  to  common  sense  ! 

2.  Let  us  see  what  marriages  become  lawful  by  this 
doctrine. 

A  man  may  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  her 
daughter,  and  her  mother;  although  these  marriages 
are  prohibited  by  the  law  of  God.  See  Levit.  18  :  17, 
18,  and  chap.  20  :  14. 

As  the  death  of  a  husband  must  produce  on  affinity 


180  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

the  same  effect  as  the  death  of  a  wife,  a  man  may,  after 
the  death  of  the  husband,  marry  his  brother's  wife  ; — 
his  father's  brother's  wife  ; — his  daughter-in-law  ; — and 
his  step-mother  ! — although  these  marriages  are  all  ex- 
pressly forbidden  by  the  Divine  law.  See  Levit.  18  : 
8,  14,  15,  16. 

Whither  are  we  going  ?  Of  what  advantage  is  the 
light  of  Divine  revelation  to  civil  Courts,  if  decisions 
which  draw  after  them  such  consequences  are  to  pre- 
vail ?  Has  the  spirit  of  the  Puritans  departed  from  the 
Courts  of  their  descendants?  "Tell  it  not  in  Gath  ; 
publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon  !" 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  181 


CHAPTER    XI, 

Subject  continued. — Rules  of  inteipretation. — Proofs  that  the  mar- 
riage is  unlawful. — Opinion  of  Basil  the  Great. — Meaning  of  near 
of  kin. — Omicron's  interpretation. — His  error. — His  imaginary  re- 
lation.— But  two  kinds  of  relations. 

Let  the  reader  review  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion laid  down  in  the  preceding  chapter,  and  ex- 
amine whether  they  are  sound  and  correct.  That 
he  may  see  them  in  one  view,  we  repeat  them. 

I.  This  law  is  to  be  interpreted  in  conformity 
with  its  general  and  permanent  character. 

II.  This  law  settles  the  degrees  of  marriage, 
without  specifying  all  the  particular  cases  which 
come  within  the  compass  of  these  degrees. 

III.  This  law  is  addressed  to  women  as  well 
as  to  men. 

IV.  In  interpreting  this  law  we  are  to  avail 
ourselves  of  the  light  of  Christianity . 

V.  Affinity  is  as  permanent  as  consangui- 
nity. 

16* 


182  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

By  these  rules  of  interpretation,  the  marriage 
of  a  man  with  his  deceased  wife's  sister  can  be 
proved  to  be  unlawful. 

1.  The  fiftli  rule  shows  that  the  near  relation 
which  a  man  sustains  to  his  wife's  sister,  is  not 
destroyed  by  her  death  ;  and,  by  the  second  rule, 
she  is  brought  within  the  interdicted  degrees : 
for  she  sustains  to  her  sister's  husband  precisely 
the  same  relation  he  sustains  to  his  brother's 
wife,  wrhom  he  is  expressly  forbidden  to  marry. 

2.  Such  a  marriage  is  unlawful  by  the  third 
rule ;  for  it  teaches  us  that  the  law  addresses 
women  as  well  as  men.  When,  therefore,  it 
prohibits  a  man  to  marry  his  brother's  wife,  it 
virtually  prohibits  a  woman  to  marry  her  sister's 
husband. 

3.  This  marriage  is  prohibited  by  the  general 
rule  laid  down  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the  chapter; 
for  tha  husband  is  "  near  of  kin  '  to  the  sister  of 
his  deceased  wife,  according  to  the  true  meaning 
of  the  phrase,  as  explained  by  the  subsequent 
prohibitions,  which  prove  that  it  refers  to  rela- 
tions by  affinity  as  well  as  by  consanguinity. 

Basil,  surnamed  the  Great,  who  flourished 
in  the  fourth  century,  denominates   this  mar- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  163 

riage  "  an  obscene  transaction ;"  and  afterwards, 
in  proving  it  to  be  unlawful,  reasons  thus  :  "  We 
might,  in  the  first  instance,  object,  (and  in  mat- 
ters of  this  kind,  such  objection  is  of  great  im- 
portance,) that  among  Christians,  there  is  no 
such  custom ;  and  custom  has  the  authority  of 
law.  But  I  am  far  from  admitting  that  the  di- 
vine  Lawgiver  has  been  silent  on  this  subject. 
On  the  contrary,  I  assert  that  he  has  most  se- 
verely and  pointedly  condemned  such  marriages  ; 
for  that  alone,  Thou  slialt  not  approach  to  any 
who  is  near  of  kin,  certainly  includes  this  spe- 
cies of  relation ;  for  what  is  so  near  to  a  man  as 
his  wife  ?  are  they  not  one  flesh  1  By  the  wife, 
therefore,  her  sister  becomes  nearly  related  to 
the  husband.  For  as  he  may  not  marry  the 
mother  of  his  wife,  or  the  daughter  of  his  wife, 
so,  for  the  same  reason  that  he  may  not  take  the 
mother  or  the  daughter,  he  may  not  take  the 
sister  of  his  wife ;  yea,  no  more  than  he  may 
take  his  own  sister  by  blood.55* 

In  this  extract  we  have,  besides  the  reasoning 
of  this  great  Christian  divine,  his  testimony  to 

*  Dr  Livingston's  Disser.  pp.  149,  150. 


184  UNLAWFUL   MARRIAGE. 

two  points  : — first,  that  such  marriages  were  not 
customary  among  Christians,  being  deemed  un- 
lawful :  and,  secondly,  that  the  Levitical  law  was 
held  by  the  Church  to  be  binding. 

To  all  this  Omicron  will  object.  He  lays  great 
stress  on  the  original  terms,  in  the  sixth  verse, 
translated  near  of  kin,  and  attempts  to  prove 
that  they  refer  only  to  6/oorZ-relation.  We  think 
he  has  failed  in  his  criticism. 

The  plain  and  obvious  interpretation  is,  that 
they  comprehend  all  the  degrees  specified,  wheth- 
er of  consanguinity  or  of  affinity,  and  that  the 
specifications  are  designed  to  show  the  true  ex- 
tent and  compass  of  the  general  rule. 

Jeremy  Taylor  says,  "For  near  of  kin  is  an 
indefinite  word,  and  may  signify  as  uncertainly 
as  great  and  little ;  nothing  of  itself  determinate- 
ly,  but  what  you  will  comparatively  to  others ; 
and  it  may  be  extended  to  all  generations,  where 
any  records  are  kept,  as  among  the  Jews  they 
were  ;  from  Judah  to  Joseph,  the  espoused  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin." 

Again,  "Affinity  makes  conjunctions  equal  to 
those  of  consanguinity  :  and,  therefore,  thou 
must  not  uncover  that  nakedness  which  is  thine 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  185 

own  in  another  person  of  blood  or  affinity,  or 
else  is  thy  father's  or  thy  mother's,  thy  brother's 
or  thy  sister's,  thy  son's  or  thy  daughter's  naked- 
ness."* 

There  is  justice  in  Taylor's  remarks  on  the 
meaning  of  the  words  he  quotes.  Jesus  Christ 
is  our  Redeemer,  the  God,  near  kinsman,  (Levit. 
25  :  49,)  who  redeems  the  forfeited  inheritance. 
"  We  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and 
of  his  bones,"  Ephes.  5  :  30.  And  what  does 
this  signify  ?  Why,  that  Jesus  Christ  assumed 
human  nature,  and  thus  became  our  near  ki?is- 
man ;  or,  as  the  apostle  says,  "Forasmuch,  then, 
as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood, 
he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same ; 
that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had 
the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil ;  and  de- 
liver them  who,  through  fear  of  death,  were  all 
their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage,"  Heb.  2  :  14. 

Paul  calls  all  the  Israelites  "  his  brethren,  his 
kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,"  Rom.  9:3;  and 
what  did  he  mean  but  that  he  and  they  were  de- 
scended from  the  same  patriarchs,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob? 

*  Duct.  Dubit.  pp.  230,  231. 


1S6  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

Every  man  is  my  kinsman  according  to  the 
flesh.  Why  ?  Because  we  are  all  descended 
from  the  same  common  pair,  have  the  same 
blood  flowing  in  our  veins,  and  partake  of  the 
same  nature.  "  God,"  says  an  inspired  writer, 
"  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth." 
Acts  17  :  26.  Hence  the  language  of  the  pro- 
phet, "  And  that  thou  hide  not  thyself  from  thine 
ownjlesh"  (original  tpiBlaa ;  Sept.  uno  tmv  olxtlav 
tov  o-TiEQpaxog,)  Isai.  58.  7.  All  these  expressions 
are  to  be  determined  by  the  context  and  the  oc- 
casion. They  are,  according  to  the  context 
and  occasion,  more  general  or  more  restricted 
in  their  meaning. 

The  meaning  of  the  terms  in  Levit.  18  :  6,  is 
explained  in  the  context,  by  the  prohibitions ; 
which  obviously  show,  that  it  includes  relations 
by  affinity,  as  well  as  relations  by  consanguinity  ; 
and  that  it  is  to  be  extended  as  far  as  the  degrees 
specified,  and  no  farther. 

Philology  does  not,  as  Omicron  asserts,  "  con- 
fine the  prohibition  in  verse  6  to  Wood-kindred," 
(p.  27,)  in  his  sense  of  the  terms.  He  means, 
as  is  manifest   from   the    two  preceding  para- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  187 

graphs,  blood-kindred,  to  the  exclusion  of  "  af- 
finity, or  relationship  by  marriage."  Neither 
the  original  Hebrew  nor  Greek  terms  will  justi- 
fy the  assertion.  Look  at  his  proofs  in  the  par- 
agraphs. ^232,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  a 
word  of  extensive  signification.  In  Gen.  6  :  12, 
it  means  all  mankind  ;  and  in  Gen.  7  :  21,  it  sig- 
nifies all  animals  as  well  as  men.  Simon,  in  his 
Lexicon,  says  it  means  relatives  by  blood  and 
affinity.  That  the  latter  are  embraced,  see  Judg. 
9  :  2,  and  2  Sam.  19  :  11,  12.  The  passages  re- 
ferred to  by  Omicron,  use  the  Hebrew  word  "isitt) 
for  &fooc?-kindred  ;  but  his  comment  on  Num.  27  : 
11,  is  not  correct.  He  says,  "  This  last  passage 
in  Numbers,  is  especially  decisive;  for  it  directs 
that  the  inheritance  of  land,  in  default  of  a  son 
or  other  near  heir  to  any  person,  shall  go  to  the 
next  of  his  'kin;'  ^i,  (she-er,)  in  his  clan  or 
division  of  his  tribe,  (not  in  his  family ,  as  in  the 
English  version.)  But  inheritance  went  only 
by  blood,  never  by  affinity ;  and  in  this  very  in- 
stance it  passed  over  all  the  nearest  relations  by 
affinity,  to  go  to  a  blood-kinsman,  however  re- 
mote. This  word,  then,  did  not  of  itself  include 
even  the  nearest  degrees  of  affinity.'' 


188  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

On  this  passage  of  Omicron  we  offer  the  fol~ 
lowing  remarks : 

1.  His  censure  of  the  English  version  is 
groundless  ;  for  the  original  word  is  not  the  one 
quoted  by  him,  but  a  very  different  word,  which 
is  rightly  rendered  by  the  English  word  family. 

2.  The  kinsman  spoken  of  is  the  kinsman  of 
the  deceased  maris  father,  that  is  next  to  him  of 
his  familv. 

3.  When  a  Hebrew  died  without  a  son,  the 
inheritance  went,  according  to  law,  to  his  daugh- 
ter, (v  8;)  but  if  he  had  no  daughter,  then  it 
went  to  his  brethren ;  if  he  had  no  brethren, 
then  to  his  father's  brethren ;  and  if  his  father 
had  no  brethren,  then  to  his  father's  kinsman 
that  is  next  to  him  of  his  family.  It  is  true  that 
the  inheritance  passed  the  nearest  affinity-rela- 
tions ;  and  so,  with  the  exception  of  a  daughter, 
it  passed  the  nearest  female  blood-relations,  as 
sisters  and  mother,  and  even  his  father,  that  it 
mio-ht  cro  to  his  father's  brethren  or  a  more  remote 
kinsman,  (Num.  27  :  9-11.)  Now,  from  this 
legal  arrangement  about  inheritance,  what  argu- 
ment can,  with  propriety,  be  drawn  to  limit  the 
signification  of  the  Hebrew  word  to  blood-kin- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  189 

<ired,  to  the  exclusion  of  relations  by  affinity,  or 
marriage  ?  It  will  be  seen,  by  examining  the 
prohibitions,  (although  Omicron  thinks  this  ex- 
clusive signification  is  confirmed  by  the  addition 
of  another  Hebrew  term,)  that  the  meaning  of 
the  original  term  does  include  affinity,  as  well 
as  consanguinity,  even  by  his  own  admission. 

It  is  added  by  Omicron,  "  The  Seventy  also 
understood  it  in  the  same  restricted  sense;  and 
have  always  rendered  it  by  some  form  of  oixo, 
oixeiog,  and  the  like,  implying  a  relationship 
in  one's  own  house  or  family,  that  is,  by 
blood ;  and  not  contracted  from  abroad  by 
marriage." 

Now  we  undertake  to  prove  that  the  mean- 
ing of  this  Greek  term  is  not  restricted  to  rela- 
tionship by  blood,  and  that  instead  of  excluding 
relationship  by  marriage,  it  really  includes  it 
"  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou  and 
all  thy  house  (otv.og,  *|fc*5)  into  the  ark,"  Gen. 
7;   1.      Who   constituted    all    Noah's   family? 
Were  they  all  blood-relations,  and  none  by  affi- 
nity?    Noah  obeyed  the  command  ;  and  whom 
did  he  take  with  him  into  the  ark  ?  We  have  an 
answer  in  the  seventh  verse :  "And  Noah  went 

1? 


190  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

in,  and  his  sons,  and  his  wife,  and  his  son's 
wives  with  him,  into  the  ark."  Were  the  wives 
of  Noah's  sons  &Zoof?-relations  1  Take  another 
proof.  "  For  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command 
his  children  and  his  household  (or/.og)  after  him/' 
&c,  (Gen.  18  :  19.)  Who  constituted  the  house- 
hold of  Abraham,  as  distinguished  from  his 
children  ?  We  find  an  answer  in  chap.  17  :  23. 
"  And  Abraham  took  Ishmael,  his  son,  and  all 
that  were  born  in  his  house,  (oixoyevttg.)  and  all 
that  were  bought  with  his  money,  every  male 
among  the  men  of  Abraham's  house,  (otxoc,) 
and  circumcised  the  flesh  of  their  foreskin  in 
the  self-same  day,  as  God  had  said  unto  him." 
So  extensive  is  this  Greek  term,  that  it  includes 
in  its  meaning  not  only  relations  by  affinity,  but 
even  servants  bought  with  money.  Robinson,  in 
his  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  gives  as  the 
meaning  of  this  term,  under  "  c)  meton.  a  house- 
hold,  family,  those  who  live  together  in  a 
house."*  See  also  Gen.  35  .  2 ;  42  :  33  ;  47  :  12, 
24.  Exod.  1  :  I  ;  12  :  4.  Levit.  16 :  17,  and 
twenty  more.     Omicron  is  entirely  mistaken  as 

*   Omicron  is  Robinson. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 


191 


to  the  meaning  of  this  Greek  term.     It  certainly 
includes  relations  by  affinity. 

Omicron,  to  establish  what  he  deems  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  term  translated  "  near  of  kin;' 
subjoins  this  remark,  (p.  27  :)  "  Farther,  the 
addition  here  of  the  other  Hebrew  word  "pbn, 
be-sa-ro,  '  of  his  flesh,'  renders  the  expression 
still  more  specific,  and  makes  it  equivalent  to 
'flesh  of  his  flesh.'" 

The  comprehensive  import  of  this  Hebrew 
term,  has  already  been  shown.  Manifestly  it  is 
more  extensive  than  the  other  term,  1S123 ;  it 
certainly  embraces  relation  by  affinity,  as  well 
as  relation  by  consanguinity.  Its  addition, 
therefore,  must  extend,  not  limit,  the  import  of 
the  latter  word.  Indeed  the  two  words  seem  to 
have  been  designedly  selected  by  the  Lawgiver, 
that  the  general  rule  in  the  sixth  verse  might  ac- 
cord with  the  subsequent  prohibitions,  and  em- 
brace both  kinds  of  relations,  as  they  clearly  do. 

The  view  we  have  taken  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  term  "  near  of  kin,"  is  confirmed  b) 
the  Targums  of  Onlelos  and  of  Jonathan  The 
Targum  of  OnJcelos,  which,  according  to  Dr. 
Clarke,    was   written    "  some   time   before  the 


192  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

Christian  era/'*  translates  Levit.  18 :  6,  thus  : 
"  Vir  vir  ad  omnem  proximam  carnis  suae  (s^p 
ft^toii)  non  accedet,  ut  revelet  turpitudinem  : 
Ego  Deus." 

The  Tar  gum  of  Jonathan,  who  is  placed  by 
Dr.  Clarke,  A.  D.  50,  gives  this  version  of  the 
same  verse :  "  Vir  juvenis  aut  senex^ad  ullam 
propinquam  carnis  suae  (fi^b^  PQ*1^)  non  ac- 
cedetis  ad  contemnendum  turpitudinem  ejus  con- 
cubitu,  aut  nudatione  turpitudinis  :  ego  Domi- 
nus." 

The  word  proximus  used  by  the  former,  and 
the  word  propinquus  by  the  latter,  (and  the 
original  terms,)  signify  a  relation  by  affinity,  as 
well  as  by  consanguinity .  So  that  both  these 
celebrated  Jewish  Rabbies  differ  from  Omicron 
in  the  interpretation  they  give  of  the  Hebrew 
terms  rendered  in  our  English  version  "  near  of 
kin." 

It  is  manifest,  then,  that  "  PMJology"  does 
not  confine  the  prohibition  in  the  sixth  verse  to 
Wood-kindred. 

Omicron,  presuming  that  his  philology  is  s«8- 

*  Secession  of  Chris.  Literature,  p.  48. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  193 

tained  by  the  prohibitions,  adds  :  "  But  how  is 
this  borne  out  by  the  subsequent  verses  ?  I 
agree  with  Dr.  Hodge,  that  all  that  follows  is  only 
the  amplification  and  application  of  this  general 
rule,  showing  what  degrees  of  nearness  of  kin 
constitute  a  bar  to  marriage.  Hence,  when  there 
could  be  no  possible  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of 
•  flesh  of  his  flesh,'  no  specification  is  given  :  as  in 
the  case  of  one's  own  daughter.  But  in  cases 
where  doubt  could  arise,  or  where  there  could  be 
any  possible  evasion,  a  specific  prohibition  is  sub- 
joined ;  hence  the  wife's  daughter  is  expressly 
prohibited  in  verse  17 ;  because,  although  no  one 
could  doubt  that  my  own  daughter  is  '  flesh  of 
my  flesh,'  yet  it  might  be  a  question,  whether 
my  step-daughter  is  to  be  so  regarded." 

The  following  remarks  on  this  quotation  will 
test  the  correctness  of  Omicrori's  reasoning. 

1.  As  his  object  is  to  prove,  from  the  verse? 
subsequent  to  the  sixth,  that  they  restrict  the 
prohibitions  to  blood-kindred,  he  must  mean,  by 
"flesh  of  his  flesh,"  and  "flesh  of  my  flesh," 
blood-kindred ;  unless  he  intends,  very  impro- 
perly, to  shift  his  ground. 

%.  Omicron  has  been  most  unfortunate  in  his 
17* 


194  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

inspection  of  the  prohibitions.  Can  any  one 
doubt  whether  a  mother  is  a  Woorf-relation?  Is 
evasion  here  possible  ?  Let  the  reader  open  his 
Bible,  and  look  at  the  first  prohibition,  (v.  7.) 
What  is  it?  "The  nakedness  of  thy  mother 
shalt  thou  not  uncover  :  she  is  thy  mother  ;  thou 
shalt  not  uncover  her  nakedness."  Observe,  too. 
the  prohibition  is  repeated. 

3.  Omicron  in  fact  yields  the  point  in  dispute  ; 
for  he  shows  that  a  step-daughter  is  expressly 
prohibited,  in  verse  17.  What  is  a  step-daugh- 
ter ?  Not  a  ^food-relation,  as  he  represents  her 
to  be,  but  manifestly  a  relation  by  affinity,  or 
marriage. 

Thus,  by  his  own  showing,  the  general  rule 
in  the  sixth  verse  includes  relations  by  affinity, 
as  well  as  by  consanguinity.  If  there  were  no 
other  cases  of  the  kind,  this  single  prohibition 
would  be  decisive  of  the  question.  But  there 
are  more;  not  less  than  eight,  as  already  shown, 
(page  177,)  viz.,  step-mother,  father's  brother's 
wife,  daughter-in-law,  brother's  wife,  wife's 
daughter  or  step-daughter,  wife's  son's  daugh- 
ter, and  her  daughter's  daughter,  and  wife's  sis- 
ter.    So  that  the  number  of  q^Em'ty-relations   is 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  195 

equal  to  the  number  of  blood-relations  found 
in  the  prohibitions. 

ButOmicron  has  contrived,  by  inventing  a  new- 
relative,  to  reduce  the  number  to  three  only  : 
the  wife's  "  mother,  daughter,  and  grand-daugh- 
ter," (p.  28.)  This  new  relative  is  denominated 
by  him  affinity  through  blood.  He  distributes 
relations  into  three  kinds.  The  relation  of  a 
step-mother  he  calls  "  affinity  through  blood;51 
that  of  a  wife's  step-mother,  "affinity  through 
marriage ;"  that  of  a  sister,  "  blood,"  (p.  28. 
near  the  top.)  Affinity  through  blood  we  regard 
as  a  mere  abuse  of  terms.  A  step-mother  sus- 
tains no  such  relation.  Her  relation  is  by  affini- 
ty or  marriage.  Equally  erroneous  is  it  in  Omi- 
cron  to  denominate  "paternal  uncle's  wife," 
"son's  wife,"  and  "brother's  wife,"  "affinity 
through  blood." 

There  are  but  two  kinds  of  relatives;  one  by 
blood,  and  the  other  by  marriage.  Consangui- 
nity is  applied  to  the  former,  and  affinity  to  the 
latter.  Webster  defines  affinity,  "The  relation 
contracted  by  marriage,  between  a  husband  and 
his  wife's  kindred,  and  between  a  wife  and  her 
husband's    kindred ;  in    contradistinction    from 


196  UNLAWGUL    MARRIAGE. 

consanguinity,  or  relation  by  blood."  Johnsons 
definition  is  the  same.  There  is  no  such  rela- 
tion as  affinity  of  or  through  blood.  It  is  a  mere 
invention  of  Omicron's  imagination.  By  this 
contrivance  he  strikes  four  relations  from  the 
affinity  class  ;  "  father's  wife,  paternal  uncle's 
wife,  brother's  wife,  son's  wife,"  (p.  28,)  and 
by  speaking  of  the  "blood-kin"  of  a  wife;  he 
presents  "  the  rule  of  prohibition  on  the  ground 
of  blood,  under  three  aspects,"  (p.  28.)  But  let 
O micron  return  to  the  use  of  proper  terms,  and 
lay  aside  his  imaginary  relation,  and  what  will 
follow  ?  He  will  then  present  the  rule  of  pro- 
hibition on  two  grounds,  that  of  blood  and  that 
of  affinity ;  and  will,  of  course,  exhibit  it  under 
two  aspects.  His  rule  will  read  thus  :  "  I  may 
not  cohabit, 

"  1.  With  my  own  blood-k'm,  in  the  six  nearest 
degrees. 

"  2.  With  my  affinity  relations,  in  the  eight 
nearest  degrees." 

If  O micron  feels  particularly  attached  to  his 
rule  of  "three  aspects  of  blood,"  we  think  we 
shall  not  object  to  it,  provided  he  will  strike 
out    of    the  preceding   paragraph   his    paren- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  197 

thesis,  "(omitting  verse  18  for  the  present,)" 
and  add  to  the  wife's  kindred  her  sister,  who  is 
certainly  a  blood-kin  of  her  body.  Then  his 
third  aspect  will  read  thus,  "  With  the  four  near- 
est blood-kin  of  her  body  with  whom  I  have  co- 
habited." 

"  If  affinity,"  inquires  Omicron  (p.  28,  last 
par.  but  one,)  "  be  the  same  with  blood  in  the 
eye  of  the  divine  law,  where  is  the  limit  to  be 
drawn?"  This  question  we  answer  by  another. 
If  blood  be  the  only  reason  of  the  law,  where  is 
the  limit  to  be  drawn?  We  answer  both  by 
saying,  The  law  prescribes  the  limit.  He  adds, 
"  If  my  wife's  sister  be  to  me  in  this  respect  as 
my  own  sister  by  blood,  then  why  does  she  not 
stand  in  just  the  same  relation  to  my  own  brother ! 
A  singular  question  !  With  the  same  propriety 
might  Omicron  ask,  If,  by  marriage,  I  and  my 
wife  are  so  intimately  related  as  to  be  one  flesh, 
why  does  she  not  stand  in  just  the  same  relation 
to  my  own  brother  ?  Because  she  is  not  mar- 
ried to  him. 

The  relation  which  a  man  bears  to  his  bro- 
ther's wife  has  generally  been  admitted  to  be  the 
same  as  the  relation  he  bears  to  his  wife's  sister. 


19S  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

Omicron  denies  this;  and,  styling  a  "  Brother's 
wife  affinity  through  blood,"  he  says,  "  Parallel, 
not  the  wife's  sister,  as  is  often  assumed,  but  the 
wife's  brother's  wife :"  (p.  28:)  that  is,  the  rela- 
tion of  a  wife's  brother's  wife,  which  results  from 
two  intervening  marriages,  is  the  same  as  the  re- 
lation  of  a  brother's  wife,  which  results  from  a 
single  marriage.  A  singular  parallel !  My  bro- 
ther's wife  might  say,  "  The  relation  I  sustain 
to  my  husband  is  the  nearest  of  all  human  rela- 
tions; we  are  *  one  fesJi;'  I  therefore  bear  a 
near  relation  to  his  brother."  In  like  manner,  I 
may  say,  "  The  relation  I  sustain  to  my  wife  is 
the  nearest  of  all  human  relations  ;  we  are  '  one 
flesh  :'  I,  therefore,  bear  a  near  relation  to  her  sis- 
ter."    Are  not  these  two  relations  parallel? 

Omicron  is  not  correct  in  saying  that  marriage 
with  a  wife's  mother  is  expressly  forbidden  in 
verse  17.  That  verse  does  not  expressly  prohi- 
bit such  a  marriage.  Its  unlawfulness  is  deter- 
mined  by  inference;  and  the  terrible  penalty 
denounced  against  it,  in  chap  20  :  14,  shows 
the  inference  to  be  correct.  See  above,  chap,  vii : 
p.  124. 

Further,  let  it  be  observed,  that,  by  one  of  his 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  199 

own  rules,  on  p.  28,  No.  2,  the  marriage  of  a 
man  with  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  can  be 
proved  to  be  unlawful.  The  rule  laid  down  by 
us  for  interpreting  this  law  of  marriage,  in  Levit. 
18,  (p.  181,)  that  the  Lawgiver  speaks  in  it  to 
women,  as  well  as  to  men,  we  deem  perfectly  just, 
and  not  to  be  disproved.  Now,  as  a  man  can,  ac- 
cording to  Omicrm's  direction,  say,  ''I  may  not 
cohabit  with  that  with  which  my  own  blood-kin 
of  the  four  nearest  degrees  has  cohabited  ;" 
among  which  degrees  is  a  brother ;  or,  in  other 
words,  I  may  not  marry  his  wife  :  so  a  woman 
can  say,  "  I  may  not  cohabit  with  that  with 
which  my  blood-kin  of  the  four  nearest  degrees 
has  cohabited ;"  among  which  degrees  is  a  sis- 
ter :  or,  in  other  words,  I  may  not  marry  her 
husband. 

If,  then,  it  be  unlawful  for  a  woman  to  cohabit 
with,  or  marry  her  sister's  husband,  it  must  be 
unlawful  for  that  man  to  marry  his  deceased 
wife's  sister. 

One  remark  more,  and  we  have  done  with  his 
objections.  Speaking  of  a  man  who  has  married 
a  second  time,  Omicron  says,  (p.  28,)  "  The  for- 
mer prohibitions  as  to  blood  and  blood-affinity," 


^00  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

(blood-affinity  !  an  abuse  of  terms  !)  "  all  remain  : 
but  his  marriage  has  brought  him  into  a  new  af- 
finity with  the  female  relations  of  his  late  wife." 
New  relations  !  what  new  relations  to  the  female 
relations  of  his  late  wife?  They  remain  un- 
changed. He  goes  on  to  inquire,  "  Do  the  same 
prohibitions  pass  over  now  upon,  and  include  all 
these  new  relations?"  When  Omicron  has 
proved  that  affinity  to  a  wife's  kindred  is  de- 
stroyed or  changed  by  her  death,  he  may  ask 
this  question.  This  he  has  not  done,  nor  is  he 
likely  to  do  so.  The  prohibitions  passed  upon 
and  included  the  kindred  of  the  first  wife,  as 
soon  as  she  was  married ;  and  after  her  decease 
they  remain  upon  them,  and  abide  on  them,  dur- 
ing their  lives,  and  the  life  of  her  husband. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  201 


CHAPTER    XII. 

Conclusion. — Leviticus    18:    18. — Meaning. — Objections. — Implica 
tion  often  rejected. — Penalties  of  the  Hebrew  civil  law 

In  the  last  chapter  it  was  shown,  by  just  rules 
of  interpretation,  that  it  is  unlawful  for  a  man  to 
marry  his  deceased  wife's  sister,  for  the  following 
reasons  : 

1 .  He  sustains  to  her  precisely  the  same  rela- 
tion which  he  sustains  to  his  brother's  wife, 
whom  he  is  expressly  forbidden  (v.  16)  to  marry. 

2.  As  the  law  addresses  women  as  well  as  men, 
when  itsaysto  a  man, Thou  shalt  not  cohabit  with 
thy  brother's  wife,  it  virtually  says  to  a  woman, 
Thou  shalt  not  cohabit  with  thy  sister's  husband, 

3.  A  man's  sister-in-law  is  near  of  kin  to  him  ; 
and  so  comes  under  the  general  rule  of  prohibi- 
tion in  the  6th  verse. 

4.  She  is  blood-k'm  to  her  sister,  with  whom 
her  brother-in-law  has  cohabited. 

18 


202  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

To  all  these  reasons  we  subjoin  another,  that 
a  man  is  expressly  prohibited  to  marry  his  wife's 
aister.     (Ver.  18.) 

The  prohibition  is  so  plain  that  our  brethren 
do  not  deny  that  it  was  unlawful  to  marry  a  wife's 
sister,  while  she  was  living.  But  they  contend, 
that  the  prohibition  was  binding  only  during  the 
life-time  of  the  first  sister  to  whom  the  man  was 
married. 

In  replying  to  this  objection,  we  shall  not  avail 
ourselves  of  the  position  taken  by  our  friends,  who 
contend  that  this  part  of  the  law  relates  to  Poly' 
gamy.  Allowing  the  construction  put  upon  the 
text  by  our  opponents  to  be  correct,  we  shall 
meet  them  on  their  own  chosen  ground. 

Two  remarks  will  aid  us  in  coming  to  a  right 
conclusion. 

1.  The  question  under  debate,  is  not  whether 
it  was  lawful  for  a  Jew,  but  whether  it  is  lawful 
for  a  Christian,  to  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sis- 
ter 1  These  questions  are  materially  different; 
because  the  circumstances  of  the  two  individuals 
are  widely  different.  The  Jew  lived  under  a  Theo- 
cracy, a  civil  government  in  which  God  was  the 
king ;  and  the  light  which  he  enjoyed  was  com- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  203 

paratively  obscure.  In  consideration  of  the  dis- 
pensation under  which  he  lived,  his  conduct 
was,  in  some  things,  winked  at.  He  might  have 
more  than  one  wife,  and  he  might  divorce  his 
wives,  and  not  be  punished  by  the  civil  magistrate 
for  his  offence  against  the  moral  law.  But  to  a 
Christian,  who  lives  under  the  new  and  better 
dispensation,  and  enjoys  the  clear  light  of  the 
gospel,  polygamy  is  utterly  unlawful ;  nor  is  he 
permitted  to  divorce  his  wife,  except  for  fornica- 
tion. What  might,  in  the  eye  of  the  civil  mag- 
istrate, be  regarded  as  not  unlawful  to  a  Jew,  is 
now  known  to  be  entirely  unlawful  to  a  Christian. 
It  is  important  to  keep  this  distinction  in  view. 
Neither  Omicron  nor  the  Puritan  gave  it  due 
weight  in  the  argument. 

2.  The  question  is  to  be  settled  by  availing 
ourselves  of  the  light  of  the  gospel,  and  not  by 
returning  to  the  obscurity  of  the  old  dispensa- 
tion. This  seems  perfectly  obvious  ;  and  yet  we 
have  seen  how  both  the  Puritan  and  Omicron 
wish  to  try  the  question  at  the  bar  of  Judaism, 
and  in  a  Jewish  court. 

Our  brethren  plead,  as  an  objection  to  our  doc- 
trine, that  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  under 


204  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

discussion,  may  be  inferred  from  the  clause  in 
the  18th  verse;  "in  her  life-time"  They  con- 
tend, that,  although  the  law  forbids  a  man  to 
have  for  wives  two  sisters  at  the  same  time,  yet 
it  does  not  forbid  a  man  to  marry  two  sisters  in 
succession,  the  second  after  the  death  of  the  first. 

We  reply,  The  law,  as  we  have  before  shown 
by  a  fair  construction,  has,  in  preceding  sections, 
pronounced  its  prohibition  of  such  a  marriage  ; 
and  this  prohibition  is  not  to  be  set  aside  by  a 
mere  inference  from  a  single  clause  in  a  single 
verse. 

With  more  plausibility  may  an  inference  in 
favor  of  polygamy  be  drawn  from  this  text; 
for,  while  it  prohibits  a  man  to  take  his  wife's 
sister  in  marriage,  it  does  not  prohibit  him  \o 
marry  another  woman,  during  the  life-time  of 
the  first  wife.  Is  such  an  inference  admissible  ? 
Is  polygamy  now  lawful,  or  was  it  ever  really 
lawful  1  Neither  the  Puritan  nor  Omicron 
pleads  for  this.  "  We  grant,"  says  the  first,  (p. 
20,)  "  that  polygamy  was  forbidden  in  the  moral 
law ;  though  in  terms  so  obscure,  that  the  best 
of  men  seem  not  to  have  been  aware  of  the  pro- 
hibition, in  the  early  days  of  the  Hebrew  com- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE,  205 

mon wealth.  It  was  one  oUkose  sins  which,  being 
deeply  imbedded  in  the  customs  of  the  people 
and  institutions  of  society,  was  only  checked  and 
restrained,  and  not  absolutely  forbidden  by  civil 
legislation.  "The  latter  says,  (p.  29,)  "  But  fur- 
ther, the  Mosaic  laws,  if  they  did  not  sanction 
polygamy,  did  at  least  in  some  instances  regulate 
it,  as  being  a  former  custom  ;  just  as  in  other 
cases  of  old  customs,  which  the  Lawgiver  did  not 
see  fit  expressly  to  prohibit." 

Polygamy  then  was,  by  the  admission  of 
both  our  opponents,  always  sinful:  "which 
God/'  says  the  Puritan,  (p.  20,)  "  as  moral  go- 
vernor, uttering  the  higher  laws  of  the  universe, 
condemned."  The  inference,  therefore,  in  favor 
of  this  sinful  custom,  derived  from  this  verse, 
with  more  force  and  plausibility  than  the  infer- 
ence in  favor  of  the  marriage  under  debate, 
must  be  rejected  as  unsound  and  inadmissible. 
The  Jew,  accustomed  to  regard  polygamy  as 
lawful,  did  not  see  this  truth:  but  Christians, 
who  have  been  taught  to  regard  that  Oriental 
custom  as  sinful,  inconsistent  with  the  original 
design  of  the  marriage  institution,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  plainly  expressed  will  of  our  su- 
18* 


206  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

prerae  Lawgiver,  see  it  clearly,  and,  therefore, 
reject  the  inference. 

In  fact,  this  verse,  if  it  does  not  contain  a 
general  prohibition  of  polygamy  in  plain  terms, 
certainly  does  contain  a  prohibition  of  polygamy 
in  respect  to  two  sisters.  It  also  assigns  the 
reason  of  this  prohibition,  the  vexation  and  un- 
happiness  that  would  result  from  it  to  the  first 
wife  ;  and  does  not  the  same  reason  apply  to  this 
sinful  practice,  whether  the  two  wives  be  sisters, 
or  be  taken  from  unrelated  families  1  See  the 
case  of  Elkanah  and  his  wives.  (I  Sam.  1  : 1-8.) 
Had  not  the  Hebrews  been  misled  by  the  pre- 
valence of  this  vicious  custom,  they  might  have 
derived  salutary  instruction  from  this  prohibition, 
which  was  designed  to  impose  a  restraint  on 
polygamy.  > 

The  inference  in  favor  of  polygamy  is  urged 
by  none ;  it  is  abandoned  by  all  as  unsound  and 
inadmissible  :  and  why  should  not  the  inference 
in  favor  of  the  marriage  in  question  be  relin- 
quished as  untenable?  Will  it  be  said,  If  this 
marriage  were  sinful,  the  prohibition  would 
have  been  delivered  in  plainer  terms  ?^  The  as- 
sumption is  unfounded,   and  does    not   accord 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  207 

with  facts.  Polygamy  was  always  sinful,  and 
yet  the  terms  in  which  the  law  prohibited  it 
were  not  so  plain  as  to  convince  the  ancient 
Hebrews  of  its  unlawful  nature.  The  supreme 
Lawgiver  always  legislates  with  infinite  wisdom, 
but  not  always  as  human  wisdom  would  dic- 
tate. 

To  rest  the  decision  of  an  important  question 
in  morals,  on  so  slight  and  seeming  an  implica- 
tion of  a  single  phrase  in  a  single  text,  would  be 
hazardous  indeed. 

Various  passages  might  be  here  adduced 
from  sacred  Scripture,  the  implication  of  which 
must  be  rejected.  Take  a  few  examples  :  "  The 
Lord  said  unto  Joshua,  Make  thee  sharp  knives, 
and  circumcise  again  the  children  of  Israel  the 
second  time."  (Jos.  5:  2.)  From  this  some 
might  be  led  to  think,  that  circumcision  was  to 
be  repeated  on  those  who  had  already  received 
in  their  flesh  the  sign  of  the  covenant.  Such 
an  inference,  however,  could  not  be  admitted, 
though  seeming  to  accord  with  the  terms  of  the 
command.  Nothing  more  was  meant  by  it,  than 
that  the  children  on  whom  this  sign  had  not  been 
impressed,  should  now  receive  it — "  Therefore 


208  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

Michal,  Saul's  daughter,  had  no  child  unto 
the  day  of  her  death/'  (2  Sam.  6 :  23,)  does 
not  imply  that  she  had  a  child  at  her  death,  or 
after  that  event,  as  an  unreflecting  person  might 
imagine. — Paul  says,  "  Then  we  which  are  alive 
and  remain,  shall  be  caught  up  together  with 
them  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air." 
(1  Thes.  4:  17.)  Some  might  feel  inclined  to 
suppose  Paul  believed  that  he  and  some  of  the 
Thessalonians  would  be  alive  at  the  second  ad- 
vent of  our  Redeemer  ;  but  though  the  words  of 
the  apostle  seem  to  imply  it,  we  know  he  did 
not  so  believe. — In  answer  to  Peter's  question 
about  John,  "  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  If  I  will 
that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ? 
Follow  thou  me."  What  inference  was  drawn 
from  these  words  of  our  Lord  ?  The  sacred 
historian  has  told  us  :  "  Then  went  this  saying 
abroad  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple 
should  not  die."  Was  this  inference  correct  ? 
It  was  not ;  for  John,  we  know,  did  die  ;  and  he 
himself  adds,  as  a  corrective  of  their  mistake, 
"  Yet  Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  He  shall  not  die, 
but  if  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that 
othee?"     (John  21  :  20-23.) 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  209 

We  have,  it  is  true,  sufficient  reason  for  re- 
jecting the  implication  of  these  texts  ;  and  have 
we  not  abundant  reason  for  rejecting  the  impli- 
cation of  the  particular  text  under  review  ? 

Let  the  truths  that  have  been  established  in 
this  discussion  be  again  recalled.     We  have,  it 
is  believed,  proved,  that  the  Levitical  law  is  an 
ecclesiastical  law,  (not  civil  or  judicial,)  design- 
ed for  the  Church  in  every  age ;  which,  having 
never  been  repealed,  is  perpetually  binding  on 
Christians.     It  has  been  proved,  that  this  law 
prohibits  not  only  single  incestuous  acts  of  un- 
cleanness  between  near  relations,  but  their  mar- 
riage, and  prescribes  the  limits  of  lawful  mar- 
riage.    It  has  been  proved,  that  this  ecclesiasti- 
cal law  is  a  moral  law,  designed  to  regulate  the 
conduct  of  men  in  a  matter  of  high  interest,  in 
which  domestic  purity  and  sound  morals  in  the 
community  are  deeply  concerned ;  and  a  natural 
law,  resting  on  the  natural  relations  which  the 
Creator  has  constituted.     It  has  been  proved, 
that  this  ecclesiastical,  moral,  and  natural  law 
prohibits,  in  various  ways,  and  in  different  sec- 
tions, the  marriage  in  question. 

1.  It  comes  within  the  compass  of  the  general 


210  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

prohibition  or  rule  laid  down  in  the  sixth  verse  : 
for  the  sister  of  a  married  woman  is  near  of  kin 
to  her  husband ;  because  she  sustains  a  near 
affinity  relation  to  him,  and  a  near  blood  relation 
to  her  with  whom  he  has  cohabited. 

2.  A  man  sustains  to  his  sister-in-law  the  same 
relation  which  he  sustains  to  his  brother's  wife, 
whom  he  is  expressly  forbidden  to  marry,  (v.  16;) 
and,  therefore,  by  parity  of  reason,  he  is  forbidden 
to  marry  his  wife's  sister. 

3.  As  the  law  addresses  women  as  well  as  men, 
when  it  expressly  prohibits  a  man  to  marry  his 
brother's  wife,  it  virtually  prohibits  a  woman  to 
marry  her  sister's  husband;  and,  therefore,  if  it 
is  unlawful  for  this  woman  to  marry  this  man, 
it  must  be  unlawful  for  him  to  marry  her. 

4.  A  man  is  forbidden  to  marry  his  mother's 
sister ;  and  the  reason  assigned  for  the  prohibi- 
tion is  this  :  "  She  is  thy  mother's  near  kinsioo- 
man."  ( Ver.  13. )  Observe,  the  law  does  not  say 
she  is  thy,  but  thy  mother's,  near  kinswoman. 

A  wife's  sister  is  to  her  precisely  the  same,  her 
near  kinswoman :  and,  therefore,  by  parity  of  rea- 
son, her  husband  may  not  marry  his  sister-in-law  ; 
because  he  is  expressly  forbidden  to  marry  his 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  211 

mother's  sister,  who  sustains  the  same  relation 
to  his  mother  which  his  sister-in-law  sustains  to 
his  wife. 

Again,  the  husband  bears  to  his  wife's  sister 
a  nearer  relation  than  he  bears  to  his  mother's 
sister ;  because  he  is  more  nearly  related  to 
his  wife,  than  to  his  mother  :  and,  therefore, 
we  infer  a  fortiori  that  it  is  unlawful  for 
him  to  marry  his  deceased  wife's  sister  ;  be- 
cause he  is  expressly  forbidden  to  marry  a  wo- 
man to  whom  he  is  not  so  nearly  related  :  just 
as  we  infer  it  to  be  unlawful  for  a  brother  and 
sister  born  of  the  same  parents  to  marry;  (al- 
though such  a  marriage  is  not  specified  in  the 
law ;)  because  the  marriage  of  a  half-brother  and 
sister,  one  born  of  the  father,  and  the  other  of 
the  mother,  is  expressly  prohibited. 

5.  Finally,  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  his 
sister-in-law,  is  in  express  words  forbidden. 
(Verse  18.) 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this  accumulated  evi- 
dence, ought  not  the  seeming  implication  of  the 
concluding  clause  of  the  18th  verse,  "  in  her  life- 
time" to  be  regarded  as  futile  ?  Is  it  reasona- 
ble to  suppose,  that  this  clause  was  introduced 


212  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

by  the  Lawgiver  to  turn  away  the  bearing  of  his 
law  upon  the  marriage  in  question  ;  which,  by 
a  fair  construction,  manifestly,  and  in  various 
aspects  of  it,  prohibits  this  marriage?  We  are 
compelled  to  believe  that  it  was  not  introduced 
for  such  a  purpose.  It  was,  we  conceive,  de- 
signed, not  to  mark  the  time  during  which  it 
was  unlawful  to  marry  a  sister-in-law  ;  for  the 
unlawfulness  of  such  a  marriage  had  been  pre- 
viously settled  in  the  law;  but  to  set  forth  before 
the  Jews,  who  were  accustomed  to  regard  poly- 
gamy as  lawful,  the  injustice  and  cruelty  of  mar- 
rying two  sisters;  because  the  marriage  of  the 
second  would  be  a  source  of  vexation  and  un- 
happiness  to  the  first  wife  as  long  as  she  lived. 

This  case  is  entirely  different  from  that  of  a 
brother  marrying  the  widow  of  his  brother  who 
had  died  without  issue ;  for,  although  the  law 
before  us  had,  in  the  16th  verse,  forbidden  a  man 
to  marry  his  brother's  wife,  yet  afterwards,  by 
an  express  enactment  of  the  Lawgiver,  couched 
in  terms  not  to  be  misunderstood,  this  case  was 
excepted ;  and  it  became  obligatory  on  a  brother 
in  the  circumstances  specified,  to  marry  his 
brother's  widow,  that  he  might  raise  up  seed  to 
him. 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  213 

In  this  case,  by  the  admission  of  all,  a  man  is, 
in  express  terms,  forbidden  to  marry  his  wife's 
sister  during  her  life-time  ;  and  no  one  will  af- 
firm that  the  text  says,  in  plain  words,  he  may 
marry  such  a  relation  after  his  wife's  decease. 
It  is  silent  in  regard  to  the  time  subsequent  to 
her  death,  because  it  was  not  necessary  to  utter 
more  than  had  been  written  ;  for  the  law,  in  its 
preceding  sections,  had  spoken  in  terms  suffi- 
ciently clear  to  make  known  to  us  our  Master's 
will. 

It  may  be  objected,  If  the  unlawfulness  of  this 
marriage  was  settled  in  the  preceding  parts  of 
the  law,  why  was  the  prohibition  of  it  repeated 
in  the  18th  verse  1  If  the  reader  will  turn  to 
Lev  it.  24,  he  will  find,  that  the  penalty  annexed 
to  murder  in  the  17th  verse,  is  repeated  in  the 
2fst  verse.  In  the  18th  chapter,  which  contains 
the  law  under  discussion,  the  very  first  particular 
prohibition  (v.  7)  is  repeated  in  the  same  verse  ; 
and  the  prohibition  to  marry  a  sister  in  the  9th 
verse,  is  repeated  in  the  11th  verse.  Why  these 
repetitions  1  Are  they  not  emphatic  ?  Were 
they  not  designed  particularly  to  mark  the  un- 
lawfulness of  these  marriages'?     And  is  not  the 

19 


214  UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE. 

repetition  in  the  18th  verse  emphatic  ?  Was  it 
not  designed,  as  we  have  said  before,  to  be  a 
check  on  polygamy,  and  to  guard  against  the 
recurrence  of  the  particular  kind  of  polygamy 
which  consisted  in  having  two  sisters  for  wives, 
and  which,  if  it  had  not  been  expressly  prohibit- 
ed, might  have  been  frequent  ? 

To  the  civil  penalties  which  God,  as  the  Head 
of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  was  pleased  to 
annex  to  this  ecclesiastical  law,  and  which  he 
required  the  civil  magistrate  to  inflict  on  trans- 
gressors, we  are  not  subject;  because  we  do  not 
belong  to  that  commonwealth :  but  to  the  law 
itself  we,  and  all  who  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
it,  are  bound  to  yield  implicit  obedience ;  and 
from  this  obligation  neither  we  nor  they  can  be 
freed  by  any  civil  or  ecclesiastical  authority.  It 
is  Jehovah's  published  will ;  and  it  must  be 
obeyed. 

Were  the  public  mind  deeply  impressed  with 
the  truth  we  have  labored  to  establish,  it  would 
tend  much  to  preserve  the  purity  of  domestic 
life ;  render  the  intercourse  of  a  wife's  sister  in 
her  family,  at  all  times  and  in  all  circumstances, 
easy  and  pleasant,  free  from  suspicion  and  em- 


UNLAWFUL    MARRIAGE.  215 

barrassment ;  and  preserve  her  and  her  brother- 
in-law  from  the  temptations  to  which  human 
nature,  in  its  present  fallen  condition,  is  too 
liable.  It  would  make  a  sister's  house  like  that 
of  an  own  brother. 

But  let  the  public  mind  be  impressed  with  an 
opposite  conviction,  and  the  belief  of  the  law- 
fulness of  the  marriage  in  question  become  pre- 
valent, and  then  a  sister's  house  will  assume  a 
different  aspect.  Its  security,  its  freedom  of 
intercourse,  will  be  impaired.  A  delicate  female, 
one  who  regards  her  own  character,  and  has  a 
due  respect  to  the  opinions  of  others,  will  (eel 
that  she  cannot  dwell  in  her  sister's  family  with 
that  ease  and  pleasure,  which  she  would  enjoy 
if  she  knew  the  marriage  of  a  man  with  a  de- 
ceased wife's  sister  to  be  not  only  forbidden  by 
the  law  of  God,  but  condemned  by  public 
opinion.  The  purity  of  private  life  will  be  con- 
taminated ;  public  morals  deteriorated  ;  and  the 
commandment  of  the  most  High  God  disobeyed. 


THE    END. 


* 


Date  Due 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 

1    1012  01002  9942 

'^I'v" y>\! 

